BASIC TRAINING

Introduction

Sportsbetting 101

Choosing a Sportsbook

An Introduction to Major Wager


Introduction

This work was put together from November 2001 to March 2002, and is a collaborative effort of four Major Wager regulars: Buckeye, Patton, The Philosopher, and Turkoman1963. We have chosen a "roundtable discussion" format, where each person is given an opportunity to address each question, and to respond to what the others have said. We felt that this format was the best way to allow each author to speak from his own unique perspective and experiences, rather than having all points of view melt into one.

Our intention is to provide information and opinions on some very basic things that should be of considerable help to a sportsbetting beginner, or a newcomer to the world of offshore sportsbooks. However, we do at times go beyond the basics and discuss some matters in a way that we hope will be of benefit to sportsbettors of an intermediate level and above as well.

The questions and topics we address are organized into three main categories. The first is matters pertaining most directly to sportsbetting, both in general and specifically offshore. The second is the criteria for choosing an offshore sportsbook that best fits your needs. The third is an introduction to the Major Wager website itself.

Any and all views expressed herein are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the owners of Major Wager.

Good luck, and remember to wager intelligently and responsibly.

Buckeye
Patton
The Philosopher
Turkoman1963

Buckeye was introduced to gambling as a kid by his favorite uncle, who would take him to the track every once in a while, and would let him "share" in big football wins by giving him a cut when he helped root home the winners. As an adult, early on his gambling was entirely limited to 2-3 forays a year to the Las Vegas tables and sportsbooks, office betting pools, and then some casual offshore hoops betting by phone. When he discovered online golf betting offshore, he began betting sports more frequently and more seriously. Today, his fortes are golf match-ups, college hoops, and parlays, and he also likes to (inconsistently, unprofitably) dabble in football and table games in Vegas. He is an admitted "major square" trying to become less of one via "annoying the wise guys" at sites like Major Wager into revealing their "black magic" secrets! He has also learned not to bet on Ohio State, his alma mater, every game they play--just every other game! He grew up idolizing Tom Weiskopf--"Nicklaus is too easy to like, I want the underdog to win"--and still has a penchant for picking perennial under-achievers to root for in all sports.

Patton started out in sports gambling as a lad when his family made occasional trips to the racetrack. As an adult he has wagered on horse racing with varied success. He was introduced to sports betting on the internet over a year ago, and began sports wagering with advice he gleaned from several online wagering sites, principally Major Wager.

The Philosopher is an ex-academic and writer with extensive experience as a sportsbettor, with an emphasis on the NFL. He has been wagering fairly seriously offshore for several years, and bet sports on a more casual basis for many years before that. Here at Major Wager, he writes the sportsbook reviews, periodically posts freelance articles on the home page, is on the three-member Mediation Board, and has been a regular poster almost as far back as the site's inception.

Turkoman1963 began his hobby as a sportsbettor when his grandfather regaled him with stories of his bookmaking days competing with Al Capone in the early 1930s in Chicago. While he hasn't come close to that bit of daring--with the possible exception of cashing on a 50-1 shot in the Santa Anita Handicap--Turkoman1963 did develop a love for all sports, be it a World Cup qualifier or a Wings-Avalanche Bloody Wednesday. His best gambling advice is what his grandfather passed on: Have fun, never bet more than you can afford, and if everyone is betting one way, bet the other.


Sportsbetting 101

Realistically, can a person expect to win at sportsbetting? If so, what are some of the main factors that separate the winners from the losers?

Turkoman1963:
You can be a successful sportsbettor if you follow these simple four rules (and believe me, it is not easy to follow them):
1) Bet more when you are winning and less when you are losing;
2) Always shop for the best price on the game you are playing;
3) Never bet a game because it is on TV and you have nothing to do, unless you have a strong opinion on the game;
4) Bet more on the games you love and less on the games you like. This is important because often I hear about someone betting a meaningless Wednesday hockey game and losing a bundle and then winning a tiny amount on the NFL game he/she talked about all week long.

Patton:
The key operative word in this question is "can." Everyone agrees beating -110 is extremely hard to do in the long run. The key to success in any endeavor is discipline and that is doubly true here. If a person follows the rules Turkoman outlined above, he will certainly maximize his chance of success, for they help impose that discipline.

My only quibble would be with "bet more when winning and less when losing." To be sure, I feel the bet size should be in proportion to starting bankroll, and if you win or lose a lot, you should adjust the bet size or unit. That would take care of situations where you bet a lot on a silly flier but too little on a game you truly liked. If you really don't like the game, don't bet it. But to adjust your bet size during a winning or losing streak is asking for trouble, because eventually all streaks end. Either way you lose money--by losing more at the end of a winning streak or by failing to win more at the end of a losing streak.

Buckeye:
While I agree with most of Turk's list, I would characterize his "rules" as mostly money management tips rather than ways to win. We'll get to money management in more detail in the next question, so I'll comment on that later. I do think money management discipline is 75% of successful sports betting, but let's look at the other parts a little. I will exclude middlers and scalpers, as they are practicing more of a form of arbitrage than pure gambling. They are exploiting weaknesses in the market for profit. Nothing wrong with that, but I'll address my present remarks instead to those trying to win games.

I like to compare one's chances of long term success in sports betting to playing blackjack successfully in a casino. Very few reach the level of professional in either endeavor. Some blackjack players are able to reach the level of competent card counter, but it takes a great deal of practice and reading and skill development to get there. In most cases, it likely takes years of all three.

A second group, and probably the largest one, is the wannabes who often are just "hunch" players who think they know how to beat the game and won't admit their lack of dedication or skill or success. Their failure to keep records or track their sessions makes it easier for them to fool themselves into believing they are successful, or at least they think they could be if they ever got "lucky."

A third group is those who just play blackjack for the fun, with no delusions of riches, and no thought of ever "turning pro." This might include some skillful players, say "strict" basic strategy proponents like moi, but this group is differentiated by their setting of realistic goals and expectations in playing a game they know they can't beat long term.

I believe the same is true for sportsbetting. There are the select few pros who have the discipline, and are willing and able to commit the time and effort to do this "black art" successfully. There are the many squares who just bet recreationally in order to have some fun, and who hope to get lucky here and there, but they have no illusions that they are betting in such a way as to make them likely long term winners.

Then in between these two-and in the most dangerous position of all-are the masses of people who are convinced they've got this sportsbetting thing beat, or would if not for the inordinate number of bad beats and fixes and such they are plagued with, when in truth, they haven't put the work in, haven't developed the necessary discipline, knowledge, and skills to be winners.

Another stark truth is that playing for years doesn't necessarily make one sharper. The fact that some touts claim "40 years in the business" shouldn't impress you too much. Skill and experience aren't always synonymous. That is true about a lot in life but particularly important to keep in mind in sportsbetting contexts. Otherwise all those grizzled homeless types hanging around Vegas sportsbooks would be millionaires.

It takes a great deal of work and skills in money management, handicapping, and betting strategies to become successful. Most of us need improvement in one or all of those areas.

The Philosopher:
This is something I feel strongly about, and I think in some respects what I have to say will be different from what you're used to hearing.

1. There's an important sense in which it isn't difficult at all to win at sportsbetting. We sometimes talk about how hard it is to overcome the bookie's built-in 11 to 10 edge, but as more than one Major Wager poster has said in the past-only half-facetiously-"Who the hell bets 11 to 10 any more?" When you put up 11 to the bookie's 10, you have to hit about 52.4% of your plays to break even, but offshore you will find countless books where you can bet baseball at 10.5 to 10, and bet football and basketball and sometimes other sports at 10.7 to 10, 10.5 to 10, 10.2 to 10, and even 10 to 10.

OK, with all but the last one, you still have to hit some miniscule amount over 50% to break even or win at sportsbetting, but we're just getting started. Don't forget that you also can shop lines, typically getting an extra half point or point-and once in awhile more-compared to if you put all your bets in at one place. Right there you've just turned a few losses into pushes and pushes into wins, and once in a blue moon turned a loss into a win. That 52.4% break even point that had already dwindled due to vig discounts is pretty much gone now.

But there's more. You're also routinely getting bonuses of several types just for posting up offshore. So let's add all that free money into the pot.

Furthermore, books offer you various additional options in arranging your bets, such as teasers, buying points, money lines, etc. Now if every single one of those options are sucker plays and there are never any circumstances where you are better off using them than just making a straight bet (an assumption that's flat out false, in my opinion), then all those extra options don't hurt you. You just ignore them as if they weren't there. But if any of them even occasionally are advantageous to the player, then we've just pushed things yet another increment in the direction of the player.

Note that I haven't said a word about handicapping yet. Let's say it's a myth that we can really predict the outcome of any sports event at a greater than chance rate. Let's say that the bookies have some god-like ability to set the number such that there's always an equal chance of the game landing on either side, and that therefore players might as well be flipping coins in making their selections. Given what I've said in the preceding paragraphs, I contend that you should be able to break even or better in the long run as a sportsbettor even if you are such a coin flipper.

So whereas a lot of people envision the bookie as having this huge head start, and worry about what extraordinary thing they can do through their handicapping to overcome it, I say you're starting even or better, and that if you lose, it's because you blew it.

Play with confidence. This is beatable. A chimp flipping coins can beat this half the time or more. So should you.

You don't lose because you're struggling uphill against daunting odds. You lose because you're undisciplined. You lose because you let yourself be stupid. You lose because-as in the sports cliché--you beat yourself. You lose because, whatever you think, winning is not your first priority, which leads to:

2. Perhaps the single most important thing you need to do as a beginning gambler has to do with your attitude and goal. You have to decide, why are you betting on sports in the first place? What is your goal?

"I want to win money" is, of course, the obvious answer. But it also happens to be a false answer for the majority of gamblers. That's why they lose. It's not the 11 to 10. The 11 to 10 evaporates in no time flat, as I described above. It's because winning is not, in fact, their highest priority. If you truly wanted to win, then you'd be doing so.

Almost everyone has other, competing, goals when they gamble. They'd like to win, but they also gamble because it's a social activity they can do and talk about with their friends, because it makes it more entertaining to watch a televised sporting event, because it enables them to show a form of loyalty to their school by betting on it, and so on.

Perhaps most important is just the emotional "rush" of gambling. Many people like the feeling of "action," and the desire for this feeling motivates their gambling far more than does any goal of winning.

It's like a person who tells you he buys drugs in order to resell them at a profit, or in order to use just enough to keep him awake and alert to cram for finals so that he can graduate and enter his high-paying career of choice. A financial motive may well be a part of it as he claims, but we all know that for an overwhelming majority of people who buy drugs, they enjoy and crave the sensation of using them. It's not (just) about the money.

Similarly, many people enjoy and crave the gambling rush quite independent of any expectation of financial benefit. It's not about winning; it's about that subjective sensation they experience when gambling.

Now, mostly what I've been talking about here are factors that are largely neutral. I mean, if you can flip coins and still end up even or a little above in sportsbetting, as I have maintained, then really it shouldn't matter if your choices are influenced by home town loyalty or your desire to enjoy a televised game with your buddies.

But sometimes a gambler's other goals or motivations aren't just irrelevant to winning, but actually counter-productive. Some of what's commonly said about addicts strikes me as pop psychology blather, but there is probably some truth to the notion that many problem gamblers "want to lose" on some subconscious level, or are "punishing themselves" by gambling and losing.

People-and there are a lot of them--with these emotional issues are going to semi-intentionally do things like bet irresponsibly high amounts where they cannot ride out losing streaks. Or they're going to have mental blocks about seeking reduced vig opportunities or shopping lines, because a rational cost-benefit approach like that takes all or most of the "rush" out of gambling for them. And it's the "rush" they're addicted to. They need to be playing on the edge, they need to be taking unwise risks, or the activity would lose its appeal.

Again, why are you betting on sports? If you want to win, you'll calmly and rationally and intelligently assess every betting decision you make in light of that goal and that goal alone. Should you bet this game at all, which side should you bet, how should you bet it, how much should you bet on it, where should you bet it, etc. are all things you need to decide as a sports bettor. If your answer to each is justified by "Because this choice is better for my long term expected return" than you're on the right track. If other factors are creeping in, then don't be surprised when you lose.

As an ideal gambler, you'll want to jettison all these motivations that can detract from your profits. But at the very least, you should try to become as aware of them as you can. You might make a conscious decision that winning isn't everything to you, and that's fine. Maybe you'll decide that you like betting on the home team even when it's slightly the worse play objectively, because you choose to value that feeling of having your money staked on the same side as your loyalties, in addition to valuing winning. No problem. But at least make that decision with eyes open, and do what you can to mitigate the financial damage caused by such decisions.

3. In my opinion, another key rule for the budding sports bettor is to be very wary of folk wisdom and superstition (which can often amount to the same thing).

It's very important in sportsbetting (and this happens to be true of life in general, come to think of it) to bear in mind several key facts:

A. People are stupid.

B. Most of the things people believe, they have absorbed over time just from hearing the people in their social circle assert them.

C. Insofar as they could be said to learn anything from their own direct experience instead, most people are overly influenced by vivid anecdotal evidence, which furthermore tends to be strongly colored by their preconceptions anyway.

You will hear a lot of confident assertions-including from us in this piece--from well-meaning people trying to further your gambling education, such as "Never bet parlays or teasers; they're sucker bets," "Always bet the same amount on any wager you make," "Always bet on home underdogs," "Never bet more than 2% of your bankroll on any single bet," "Always bet against the team that's coming off a Monday Night Football win," "Always go with your first instincts; never talk yourself into backing off or switching to the other side," "Never increase your bets when you're on a winning streak, since you're due for a loss," "Bet favorites early in the week and underdogs late," etc. But, alas, some of these are sound, some are unsound, and some are indeterminate.

Why would a typical person believe that home underdogs tend to beat the spread at a greater than chance rate? He believes it, whether he realizes it or not, because when he was young, the guy down at the sports bar who spoke the loudest and most confidently when he had had a few beers, belittled someone for betting against a home underdog and announced that "everybody knows" that you should never do that. He believes it, because once someone put that idea in his head, he noticed several occasions where home underdogs comfortably covered in TV games he was watching (and didn't notice the occasions when they failed to). And ever since then, he's just kind of taken it for granted.

Sometimes such folk wisdom is true, but when it is, it's largely a matter of coincidence. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, as they say.

Before you believe any of these things, investigate it yourself and make sure you fully understand the evidence and how it allegedly supports this conclusion. For example, instead of being like this typical person, sit down with an NBA almanac of some kind and records of betting lines, check all the games where the road team was favored, and see how often the home underdog has beaten the spread. If you find that, say, the home underdog has won over 50% of the time in nine of the last ten years, and that the cumulative percentage over that period is about 54%, then it looks like you have indeed found decent evidence in at least one sport for this alleged phenomenon.

Again, look not only at the evidence, but whether it truly supports the conclusion. Let's say you are looking into whether 6 point teasers are profitable in the NFL. You crunch numbers from several seasons and discover that 75% of the time, the teaser points didn't matter-you would have lost even with them, or you would have won even without them. Only 25% of the time did the game land in that teaser range where getting the extra points made the difference between winning and losing. From this, you conclude that teasers are a bad bet. "3 out of 4 times, getting the extra points doesn't even help you," you tell people, "You'd be better off just betting them as straight bets or parlays."

But you're wrong. Even if this evidence were accurate (I'm just picking numbers out of the air by the way; don't take any of it literally), the conclusion doesn't follow, for multiple reasons. (I'll leave it to the reader to figure out why.)

So, in summary, don't go by what "they say." Figure things out for yourself. Don't believe something until you fully understand it, fully understand the reasons or evidence for and against it, and fully understand the logical connection between the two.

By the way, which of the examples I mentioned several paragraphs above are sound and which are bogus? I'll leave that up to you to figure out too. That's kind of the point.

4. Get into the habit of very detailed and accurate record-keeping. Write down everything about every wager that even might be important for you to know later.

What if you want to know how you're doing at college basketball compared to NBA? Or you want to know if the balance the sportsbook operator gives you at the start of your next call is accurate? Or you want to know if your "gut" picks in hockey are hitting at higher than chance rates? Or you want to see if losing tends to adversely affect your handicapping and snowball against you? Or you want to see if the picks you made specifically on the advice of Barnaby the Tout are really hitting at anything like the rate he led you to believe he was capable of when you signed up for his service?

With accurate records, you can go back and check all these things.

5. You don't have to have a doctorate in mathematics, but you'll want to have a good, solid grasp of the basics. I can add, subtract, multiply, divide, do percentages, etc., and that already puts me light years ahead of countless gamblers. If you're comfortable with those operations and at least don't have a total math phobia when it comes to working with numbers in general, you should be OK.

Better yet, though, is to have those basics plus some further background in statistics.

Intelligent sportsbetting entails such things as understanding odds, and assessing the statistical significance of certain evidence. The better you are at math, all else being equal, the better you'll be at sportsbetting.

6. A final major factor that's largely a matter of attitude is the realization that there's always enormous room for improvement in sportsbetting.

You always can do a little bit more research before making a bet. You always could have investigated a sportsbook a little more carefully before posting up there. You always could do another number crunching project to slightly increase your edge in a certain sport. You always could be a little more disciplined about not letting your emotions cause you to bet more on a game than you otherwise believe you should.

Do you understand all the bet types and when, or even if, to use them? Do you know what factors to look for in predicting whether a line is more likely to go up or down during the week? Do you know how to factor the weather into your handicapping? Do you know which teams tend to try to actually win their exhibition games and which do not? Do you know which baseball totals land most often, and why?

All of these and a thousand more are things you can find more out about or get better at. Every step you take adds that tiny bit more to your edge.

Turkoman1963:
This is probably our most important topic because it started out with whether and how you can win and veered off into "why are you playing?" which is related.

The "rush" as The Philosopher points out, is why most of us play. Otherwise, we'd be in cow futures. We love the idea of having action, an opinion, a Franklin (or several) on a particular game and finding out if we are right.

But you cannot let this rush destroy your discipline. You have to remain in control.

Also, as The Philosopher pointed out, you should shop for the best bonuses and the lowest vig so that when you make your plays, your rate of return will go up. For instance, say I like the Magic tonight in the NBA against the Clippers. The Clippers are a two point favorite. I can take the Magic +2 and lay $110 to win $100 or I can bet the Magic on the money line and lay $100 to win $115. I'll let you figure out what is the better bet over the long run, but you can see that there are many options to wagering and how you fund your wagers.

I too believe in detailed record keeping. I keep a ledger of every bet I make. I do this so I can track what kinds of wagers are the most successful for me (football parlays where I buy points) and what are the least successful (European soccer favorites and NBA home favorites).

Patton:
I think the foregoing discussion makes one thing clear to a casual reader: we think you can succeed, but it will not be easy. First, you have to acquire enough knowledge so that you understand a particular sport, or subsection thereof (a certain league, conference, team, or even a coach or player) better than the public. In order to do this you must develop the empirical evidence-record keeping--that demonstrates you have done so. Second, you must have the discipline to act only when you have an advantage and can come out ahead based on that knowledge and understanding. As mentioned, money management is a key factor in this second part. However, this is not an "overnight" process, but entails a lengthy apprenticeship that is performed mostly by oneself, making the task particularly difficult. But it can be done.

What advice would you give about money management? Related to this, should you bet different amounts on different games? Should you bet more when you're ahead? When you're behind?

Turkoman1963:
You cannot be a good handicapper unless you employ sound money management. Of all the factors we've discussed, the key component is money management.

My best advice regarding money management is to allot a fixed amount for wagering that is strictly for gambling and then slowly but surely find your rhythm. What works best for you? Are parlays the most profitable? NFL sides? Teasers? Betting five games a week? Five games a day? Hard to say what would work for you--everyone is different, but there will be one area where you will excel, and you should try to capitalize on it.

I don't advocate betting the same amount no matter what. There are games you simply will like better and you should pounce on those contests. Likewise, if you are bored and have nothing to do on a Tuesday night and the Mavericks are playing the Lakers and you want to wager and you kind of like Dallas, I say play the game, but don't bet nearly as much as you do on the Giants-Eagles game you love on Sunday.

There are some excellent handicappers out there who win at a rate of greater than 50 percent, and yet are losers because of bad money management. Nothing is worse than betting ten units on a game that you barely have an opinion on (because it's on TV) and losing, and then having the bet on that game you waited for all week (that was not on TV) win easily, and you realize you only wagered one unit on it.

As for winning streaks, they are golden and rare and I believe in squeezing the lemon until it's dry. I respect that others will disagree here but this has proven time and again correct. Press when you are ahead, and when the streak is over, decrease. When you are losing, go down to 1/2 or 1/4 unit and wait until you come out of your slump.

Patton and I disagree when it comes to pressing a winning streak, but perhaps that is only because I base it on my personal statistics. When I'm hot, when I'm choosing the right games and finding odds that give me an edge, I tend to press and build up a bankroll. When I'm cold and you hand me an extra TD in the NFL just because I'm a good customer, I'll still lose the wager, and thus I've learned to reduce my wagers significantly when I can't buy a winner.

This is very important. The psychology of sports wagering is a huge factor in determining your long-term financial health.

Patton:
As far as streaks, I have had the opposite experience, but my experience is limited largely to straight wagers. So, I find that it is best for me at this stage to stick to a fixed amount per game. This is probably good for someone who is still developing his handicapping abilities as I am, since if you have only a vague idea what your winning percentage is over the long haul (and here I agree that record keeping is very important), you shouldn't vary bet size.

In fact, I think that even many veteran handicappers have a difficult time "handicapping" their own selections. The New York Post has a very lively section for its sportswriters in which their NFL selections are posted, along with their "Best Bets." Of course, some have a great Best Bets record, but many others have a Best Bets record that's worse than their full record of all picks--the opposite of what you'd expect. Ditto for the records of multi-star plays I've seen for some touts; the winning percentage for "Five Star" plays can be less than that for one or two star plays.

My advice for newbies is (1) to establish a bankroll that is only for gambling and (2) to stick to a fixed percentage of the bankroll per bet--1-2%. In fact, someone just starting out is probably better off betting only $10 or so a game anyway until he becomes more confident and polished in his handicapping skills. Of course, keep detailed records of each bet. Then, as you find your strengths and weaknesses, act accordingly. But generally, sticking to a fixed percentage of bankroll will get you through the inevitable losing streaks. I would never increase or decrease the bet size unless it was in response to a change in the size of my bankroll.

Buckeye:
This is one topic where I seem to know more about what not to do (what I call negative money management ) than what to do! I agree with those who warn against all the "square traps". Those would include chasing, or betting more not because of the strength of the play but because you are behind for the day or week. Another major square trap is betting all the TV games. Other "newbie mistakes" include playing all favorites, or just betting the board (all games) to have action. All of these involve departing from the strength of the pick and falling prey to outside considerations that are destructive to one's bankroll.

I have different strategies, and bankrolls, by sport and bet type. I suck at handicapping baseball, for example, so when I bet on it I keep it to an extremely low bankroll, and the lowest stakes imaginable. The less experienced and skillful you are at a sport, the more you should stick to plain vanilla straight bets for very low stakes. Until you prove a proficiency, these sports should be treated as purely entertainment, in my opinion. I don't advocate throwing away a lot of money on any game "just to have action."

For some sports, I use a flat bet system as I have yet to prove to myself, or establish a track record, that I have any chance of an edge long term. I am resigned to the fact that I am betting them for fun and likely to be lucky to break even. For other sports, I have more confidence in a "multi-tier unit" system as I have demonstrated to myself that I can choose which picks are stronger than others even while they all are advantage plays. I also have a "parlay bankroll" for use with the sports where I have consistently been above break even. My style of money management and bankroll for each sport depends on my past record and demonstrated proficiency in the sport. The better I am at a sport, the more confidence I have in a multi-tiered system and the bigger bankroll I allocate for it.

In general, I used to think handicapping was the be-all, end-all, of sportsbetting. I am still a major "square," but I now recognize that money management and betting strategies (line shopping, vig shopping, knowing when to buy points and not to, etc.) are often at least as important as handicapping. Like with casino gambling, it is not just the vig, but poor money management that accounts for much of the losses by the average player.

To me, discipline is the absolute cornerstone of any money management system. Pick a system and stick with it for the whole season. If you don't know what to do, as a raw newbie, then I really like the advice of Patton and Major Wager poster KingOfTheSquares and others to bet the book's minimum straight (often $10) on your games and chart them until you prove to yourself you are consistent enough to venture into higher, and more complex money management systems.

If you are betting -110 and picking less than 52.38% winners, no system will counteract that, so be sure you can beat that magic break even mark before betting more. For most, that means risking only disposable income and keeping it entertaining and a hobby. Thinking you know too much is much more dangerous than being considered a minnow. Books may not want us to know, but many speculate that more than 95% of all sportsbettors lose. I've also seen quotes about most offshore bettors having less than $500 in their account. So don't feel alone or self-conscious if you are playing for fun or just playing low stakes for now. Don't get wrapped up or impressed by pros, or fauxs, bragging about betting thousands. Many are full of it, or are losing thousands as a result.

The Philosopher:
I have mixed feelings about most of the advice that I hear people give about money management, because I think there are drawbacks to pretty much all the truisms. "Don't bet more than you can afford to lose." Well, yeah, I suppose as a rule of thumb I agree with that, but if you never bet in such a way that losing would hurt, you'll never be in a position to win meaningfully either. "Don't bet more than you can afford to lose" strikes me as not unlike "Don't fall so much in love that you can end up getting hurt," or "Don't quit your present stable job to embark on a more speculative career" and the like.

Sometimes life is about gambling. And interestingly enough, sometimes gambling is about gambling too. Spend all your time making sure you can avoid the lows, and you might find you're missing out on the highs as well.

Would you tell someone "Never start a business if the business's failing would adversely impact your life"? Or "Never start a business with borrowed money"? If you're going to approach gambling seriously, you have to treat it like your business. To gamble successfully requires capital, and it requires the nerve to risk that capital.

On the other hand, since we are directing this work primarily at newbies and more recreational players, I wouldn't want us to stray too far in the opposite direction from the "Don't bet more than you can afford to lose" advice.

With this in mind, I would say that three key points to remember in managing your money and determining how much to bet are:

1. You'll lose in the long run if you are betting with a negative expectation.

2. If you're betting with a positive expectation, you can still lose if you bet so much at a time that a bad early run wipes you out and prevents you from getting to the long run.

3. If you're betting with a positive expectation, you can partly miss out on your opportunity by betting less than you could have, and hence winning less than you could have.

You need the right balance between too much risk and too little risk (and hence too little reward). If you are a beginner, concentrate more on avoiding the former (#1 and #2). Later in your career you can worry about avoiding the latter (#3).

Most people, especially when they're starting out, are a lot more apt to bet irresponsibly high than to not bet enough. So until you have some kind of solid evidence to go on that you have a long term positive expectation at sportsbetting, you should err on the side of caution.

In fact, you could even make a case for not betting at all until you know what you're doing. Maybe spend a season or more charting what you would have bet according to whatever system you propose to use, and see how you would have come out.

The drawback to this kind of dry run is that it may be difficult to fully duplicate "battlefield conditions." When you're betting real money, you can misspeak on the phone placing your bet, you can be out of money in your account at the sportsbook that has the best line, you can lose discipline and make a bet that it isn't clear your system calls for, etc. Depending on precisely what kind of system you're testing, it may or may not be possible to learn anything by betting it in a make believe fashion instead.

The next step up is to bet real money, but to bet a very small amount, like $10 per game as has been suggested. Only bump it up when you've got plenty of evidence that what you're doing works.

Focusing now on Point #1, you should completely ignore any betting system you hear about that allegedly overcomes a mathematical disadvantage. People swear by such systems, because just by chance, some people using them can be successful, especially in the short run. Just like out of a hundred touts (or baboons) picking at random, at least one will likely hit 60% or better in a given season, a random small percentage of the people who try any betting system will end up quite a bit ahead of the norm.

What I have in mind are the ubiquitous systems that tell you to double up after a loss, or increase by one unit after each win, or do this or that after you've won three or more in a row, etc. Every last one of them is total hogwash. If you're betting where the house has the edge, none of these fancy ways of ordering your bets is going to give you a positive expectation over the long run. (This is why all "systems" for craps or roulette or any other form of gambling with a built-in edge for the house are worthless. People convince themselves otherwise when they win using one, but such an outcome is pure luck.)

No fancy system like that can make you a winner if you are betting with a negative expectation. And actually a non-fancy system like "Bet the same amount every time" is no better and no worse. What you need to do is to get that edge in your favor. Nothing else can save you. It's all a mirage.

The typical fallacy of such systems is that they are based on the outcomes of already completed wagers. (For instance, you've won several in a row, so bet big to take advantage of your being "hot;" or, to the contrary, you've won several in a row, so bet small because you're "due" for a loss, etc.) But except in special cases, your sports bets are going to be independent wagers, and there is no non-superstitious justification for treating them as connected parts of a "run."

Granted, there is an indirect sense in which the outcomes of previous wagers can have a bearing on how much you should bet on your next wager, namely, the following:

Your optimum bet size for any given wager is largely a function of three main factors: The size of your present bankroll, your likelihood of winning the wager, and the odds at which you are making the wager. Obviously one of the things that affects the size of your bankroll is whether you have been winning or losing thus far. So in that indirect way, it is indeed the case that, all else being equal, you should typically be betting more after a win and less after a loss.

But keep in mind, this applies only when you have a positive expectation. If you have a negative expectation, your optimum bet size is zero.

Turkoman1963:
I guess I differ a bit from the advice that it is OK to bet if it hurts a little. I think that you should bet so that it doesn't hurt! The psychological effect of losing too much when you are starting off can be devastating. Better to set aside exactly what you can afford to lose and budget that amount into one or several selections that you feel confident about.

Newbies especially need to get a grasp for what they are successful at. You don't bet the same amount on a Tuesday night UCSB-Pepperdine basketball game where you don't know any of the players names, as opposed to an NFL side where you know every handicapping factor (injuries, weather conditions, team trends) and feel extremely confident.

What sports are best to bet on?

Buckeye:
There are several levels this can be approached from. The first is that if all other things are equal, the sports with the lowest vigorish/hold, and most games/lines to choose from, would appear to be the most vulnerable for bettors. So baseball, with its uniquely low standard 10 cent line, and large number of games, would be an obvious choice for U.S.-based sport bettors.

Since nothing is ever really equal, the second level to consider, which may be the most important factor, is the expertise of the linesmakers for the sport and the availability of pertinent handicapping information to linesmakers and the general public. Handicapping can be looked at as an "information war". The greater the disparity between your information and the linesmakers', or your information and Joe Public's, the softer the lines will be for you, and thus the more advantage you have.

For these reasons, the less generally popular the sport, the more real expertise and knowledge gives you an edge in handicapping it. Non-major sports, like tennis, golf, and NASCAR, are often thrown out-by both sides of the counter--as the most beatable, because linesmakers and Joe Public don't have the plethora of information sources that other sports provide. No injury reports on the AP wire tracking every hangnail, few statistical studies or databases to be mined, no national TV shows analyzing games, and in general less overall knowledge about these sports. These sports also tend to have more disparity in lines, as they are less "Don Best" influenced than the major sports now are. They are less popular with pros and scalpers, because their betting limits are lower, and they aren't as widespread and uniform in offerings.

The third level is your own "fan interest" in the sport. This often overrides all other considerations. Though some players have no fan interest in the sports they bet, most players tend to bet the sports they enjoy the most, the ones they watch on TV or go to in person, the ones they actively follow by choice, for those are the sports they are confident they know best. If a handicapper is to spend even 10 hours a week analyzing stats and angles and conditions of a sport, it sure helps if he has a passion and genuine interest in the game to start with.

For example, football is so popular among bettors in the U.S. that it dominates the market and pervades our society. It is thought of as un-American to not be glued to a TV for the Super Bowl, and to not have a "square" or a sheet in the office pool is considered blasphemous. It is arguably justified for a typical American bettor to focus on football.

So my opinion is that the less popular sports are more easily handicapped and beatable than the major sports, but not everyone has the interest or dedication or knowledge to exploit those sports and their relatively softer lines. It may take half as much work for you to beat NASCAR as it would to beat the NFL, but if you are a football fan who finds auto racing deadly dull and would have to force himself to put even a quarter as much work into handicapping NASCAR as football, you're actually better off sticking with the sport that's tougher to beat.

The Philosopher:
My thoughts overlap a great deal with Buckeye's. I would look at the following factors:

1. Bet the sports with the lowest vig and/or the most line shopping variation. Buckeye's example of the dime line in baseball is right on point here.

2. Bet the most obscure sports, where you have a chance to be one of the few people who actually is knowledgeable about it. If you know a lot about women's tennis, or some small college and a few of the teams it plays each year in basketball, you may well be ahead of the linesmakers already, since they offer such things as an afterthought at lower limits.

3. Cutting almost exactly in the opposite direction, bet the sports that are likely to draw the most uninformed square money. Remember, in a sense, the betting public really determines the line; the bookie is just trying to put it where he'll get roughly equal action on both sides. Since everybody and their brother bets NFL, Kentucky Derby, etc., you'd think there is an awful lot of "dumb" money affecting those lines.

4. Bet the sports where you have the most personal interest and experience. Don't bet something where researching it will be a tedious chore.

When I decided to become more serious about sports betting, I opted to concentrate on the NFL. Since I was still something of a neophyte, I wasn't really aware of #1, or at least wasn't thinking about it. I mostly was thinking about #2 and #3. I wasn't sure if it was better to be where the squares are or where almost nobody is. I kind of let #4 break the tie for me. I felt I had a head start on the NFL since that was the sport I was most interested in, so I decided to devote myself to that.

I now lean more toward the view that #2 is a stronger factor than #3. In retrospect, I tend to believe that if I had devoted the same number of hours these last few years to something like NASCAR rather than football, instead of just doing pretty well, I'd probably be stinking rich.

Turkoman1963:
I concentrate on the small areas where I believe I have a good feel for the sport in question. Obviously, I have no idea who will win a cricket match between India and England, whereas I might have a very good feeling as to whether Tennessee will cover a seven point spread against LSU.

Also, you have to factor in a key question: Do you do this as a hobby or for income? If it is the former, then all the more reason for most people to wager on the Tennessee-LSU game rather than the cricket match, especially since the cricket match is not even on American television.

Since I live on the West Coast, I think I have a good grasp of Pac 10 football and basketball and, according to my records, have done quite well when concentrating on those two areas. When I venture outside my area of expertise to, say, MAC Basketball, I am lost in the wilderness.

Now, this is not to deny that many a bettor has done quite well concentrating on a small niche, like MAC basketball, since most people don't follow it. But unlike the stock market, sports wagering is also supposed to be fun, so while I might have a better chance of winning on Weber State tomorrow night if I really study the game, I much prefer concentrating my efforts on whether Quincy Carter can string two good games in a row and thus, should I take the 4 points and the Cowboys this Sunday against the Giants.

There's also an element of bravado in all this: it is much more fun to tell your co-workers or friends that the Cowboys are a "mortal lock" this Sunday than to breeze in one morning extolling the virtues of William & Mary's point guard and how you should take the points against the Citadel.

Patton:
Many years ago, after he made the Magellan Fund the most successful mutual fund in history, Peter Lynch wrote a book on stock investing. I can't remember the name of the book but the advice was generally as follows.

You can beat the stock pros by developing information from your own life. Take a number of positions in different stocks that you believe will do well because the companies provide goods or services that appear to you to be valuable and unique.

A sports "investor" can pick up two things from this. First, it is possible to beat other bettors if you can gain an insight into a particular sport that only a few people have. This means, to me, that you should have a real love for the game to start with. Then develop that into a knowledge that enables you to understand better how that sport "works," and the factors that affect outcomes in it.

Lots of people try to handicap solely with numbers, and add a little about injuries, weather, etc. into the mix. But the intangibles are also extremely important to consider. If you have a better knowledge of what those intangibles are, and how they affect your chosen sport, you have a big edge over the competition.

My experience has been that hard, quantifiable data (stats) is easier to come by than intangible information, making the latter more valuable. Everywhere you go you can find free statistical data on the internet. Getting into the intangibles, however, requires more digging. At best you will actually view the games and see how the teams and players interact with each other in the heat of battle. If you can't do that, there are also lots of stories, and commentary, about games. But in either case, to get the intangibles, you need to spend time and exert a lot of effort. Since everyone's time is limited, you are correspondingly limited in the degree to which you can dig up and consider intangibles.

To take Turkoman's example about betting a Weber State game versus betting a Dallas Cowboys game, you are more likely to make money on more obscure information about Weber State than the better known information about Quincy Carter and the Cowboys. Most people have insufficient interest in Weber State and its conference to develop intangible information about it that will give them an edge over other bettors. But everyone and their uncle is tracking Quincy Carter's performance and has a good idea how he will perform this weekend against the Giants, making this information less valuable.

The second thing people can take away from Peter Lynch is his advice to have a number (in the case of the Magellan Fund, a vast number) of picks against which to apply your edge. That means a sport in which there are a number of betting opportunities. Of course, you should only bet when you feel you have an edge, but you are more likely to find them in sports with many games. Baseball and basketball have been mentioned already, to which I would add hockey, if that's your thing.

Thus, I would stress personal interest first. If you have no interest, you won't work hard enough to succeed. Second, I would put the number of games or betting opportunities. Third, I would put the level of knowledge and skills of the other bettors, who are, in effect, your competition. But none of these factors should be ignored.

Buckeye:
Following up on a point Philo made, I would say "inside" knowledge, or at least concentrated knowledge about a sport or league is a very good way to exploit even a major sport. What Turkoman called "niche betting" is a very salient point. Studying and knowing a small school "hoops" conference could be more valuable, time wise, than trying to cap the entire 300+ NCAA field. Concentrating on your favorite conference, or local area conference, can be a good way to keep from "stretching" to weak plays. Some successful handicappers only handicap a small portion of the sport. Some will even team up and break the league into sections for each to specialize in.

The important goal is to try to gain an edge over Joe Public who is throwing darts or flipping a coin. Any edge that can be gained, whether through unpopular sports or conferences or teams, can be exploited. I think this is a more likely productive effort than trying to bet "steam" or know where the smart versus square money is. I guess that is because I believe more in handicapping games than in handicapping money moves (as in where is the money coming from and whom is it going on).

One point I'd like to make that runs counter to some of what we've said is that it can be a mistake to confuse the fan interest of watching and enjoying games with real knowledge. The natural biases of a fan can actually detract from one's handicapping. Sometimes an objective view, like "number crunchers" use, can keep you from falling into the "I just know this team is due to ..." trap. For some, it is better to bet on sports they don't care about, as it brings objectivity.

Scalpers and middlers, for instance, often remove the emotion of whom it is they are betting on from the equation. They concentrate on the line instead of the team. There is a lesson in that perspective, in my opinion. Their only interest in the teams is how the linesmakers or the public views them, not how they themselves view them.

This is where your purpose in betting comes in. If you are doing it for amusement, and have no delusions of grandeur, then by all means bet on your favorite sports. But if your interest is in making money from betting, then a sport that you have developed biases (very possibly faulty) in over years of "fan interest" may be the last place you should look to bet for profit.

The Philosopher:
In summary, we really can't name a specific sport or list of sports that is best for everyone. All we can do is mention some of the factors that we think are most important in making that decision. And many of those factors are relative to the individual bettor.

What about the tout services that sell picks? Are there any good services at reasonable rates?

The Philosopher:
I guess the easy answer here is "no."

Now, in principle, there's nothing impossible about it being fair and appropriate for one person to sell his picks to another. If I put 40 hours a week into handicapping, and you lack the time or skills to do so yourself, then we might enter into an agreement for you to pay me for the results of my labor. If I'm good at handicapping, the upshot is we both benefit from this deal. I get whatever I win on my gambling plus this additional fee from you, and you get winners you wouldn't have been able to pick yourself, and end up ahead gambling even after paying me for them.

But in the real world, this almost never happens, for a number of reasons.

The main problem is, these tout services you see advertised are 99% marketing and 1% handicapping. Pure and simple, you don't make money as a tout because you are good at picking games, any more than Miss Cleo receives the most paid calls seeking psychic guidance because she is the most skilled at divining the future. You make money because of how much and how well you market yourself.

You might say, "Well, I'll just go with the ones with the best past record," but that's not as easy as it sounds. Those that report their own record are often lying or at least being misleading. Those that are monitored by some "third party" might secretly be affiliated with the third party (or actually be the third party). Even if you monitor the picks for awhile yourself, you have to remember that if thousands of touts picked games by flipping coins, according to probability theory a certain number of them would go on superficially very impressive, but ultimately utterly meaningless, hot streaks. So what does it really tell you that so-and-so is 12-3 on his last fifteen "Pick of the Weeks" since you've been monitoring him?

You'll probably find it at least as challenging to figure out who is and is not a skilled handicapper as it would be to simply do your own handicapping.

Furthermore, there are many handicappers who share their picks publicly on sites like Major Wager and countless others. You can get those for free. Are most of these picks worthless? Probably. But no more so than those of the average tout you have to pay. If you must let someone else pick your games for you, go with the freebies.

Almost everyone around a place like Major Wager will tell you flat out, "Never buy picks from a tout." For the most part, I agree.

Patton:
I am going to agree with you here, Philosopher. I got started on this path over 20 years ago with one of the legendary sports touts. He sold my name to other touts (some of whom I suspect were actually the original tout in a new disguise). To make a long story short, I found out there is no free lunch. In fact, it was a very expensive "lunch" in the end.

With the Internet today, there is a new avenue for these touts to market themselves. It has also opened up access to talented handicappers who sell their picks. But as you point out, Philosopher, even these people have to spend time marketing themselves, a task that takes away from precious handicapping time.

But why pay at all? For the net is also a path bringing us information and resources we never had before, and much of it is free. The guys on Major Wager are a great example. Newbies should definitely become acquainted with the regulars who have posted picks for the benefit of others and have stuck around. They should learn to avoid the touts who come in, post a few picks, and leave if their record goes south.

There are also countless other sites that offer free picks, many of them belonging to touts. A fellow at the website Cappers Access lists his own picks and has literally dozens of links to other free pick sites if that's what you're interested in.

However, the time spent "handicapping the handicappers" might be better spent in learning to handicap one or more sports yourself.

Turkoman1963:
I use tout services when they offer free picks. I like to see how they arrive at their selections and sometimes that information is useful. I don't have the time or wherewithal to research how Towson State has done the last three times they've played BYU at BYU, or how their leading scorer is coping with that sexual battery charge he's facing, so that kind of information is useful and sometimes it will lead me to play a Towson State when I normally would pass the game.

But to pay for touts is just not in my vocabulary for the same reason that I don't sign on with any stock broker who calls me up during dinner to tell me about a hot stock that I must jump on. If they were so good, they'd just make the plays themselves and not call me and interrupt my veal piccata.

Buckeye:
I also think paying for picks is a waste of time and money. There are some services and newsletters that provide stats and analysis and angles, not just trends. Those I would consider paying for, if the fee is nominal. Many touts are salesmen, as Philo noted, much more than handicappers. I am interested in why you like Seattle, not just that you like them, particularly if I am expected to pay for such information.

Even some previously successful handicappers see their performance drop off when they turn tout. Some speculate that it messes them up, as they now have the marketing aspect to do and they "sweat the picks" more and change their techniques and criteria and end up failing.

How should one go about handicapping a game?

The Philosopher:
Later we'll talk about how to bet a game advantageously (shop lines, look for the lowest vig, etc.), but for this question, let's talk just about actually trying to figure out who's going to win a game, by how much, etc.

I think there are two main general approaches to handicapping, though they overlap somewhat, and most bettors probably use a combination of the two.

One is more substantive, and one is more a technical analysis of "trends."

The first type of method is where you research as much as possible about these teams specifically and this game specifically, weigh all the relevant substantive factors as best you can, and arrive at your best educated guess as to the likely outcome. There is a lot of subjectivity here, a lot of reliance on your "gut" to tell you what to consider and how heavily to weigh it.

If you're betting on Baltimore because their defensive line is bigger, stronger, and faster than Pittsburgh's offensive line, because Pittsburgh has poor coaching, because Pittsburgh's best linebacker is out with an injury, because Baltimore has to win this game to make the playoffs and will likely play with a greater urgency, etc., then you're using this method.

The key to this method is research, research, research. The more informed your opinion or intuition is, the better.

The second method involves looking for specific trends that appear to hit at a greater than chance rate, and then betting the games that fit these trends.

For example (these are all made up by the way), "In games where a rookie pitcher is making his first career start, his team wins 45% of the time," "When Notre Dame plays its third consecutive home game as an underdog, it beats the spread 70% of the time," "Teams that have gained more yardage than their opponent for at least three games in a row beat the spread in their next game 59% of the time," etc.

Most touts seem to rely more on this second method. ("Bowling Green has beaten the spread the last seven times they were coming off a double-digit road loss," etc.) I think this method appeals to a lot of people because there is a certain precision or objectivity to it, compared to subjectively analyzing the game itself and all its complex substantive factors. I mean, Bowling Green either is or is not coming off a double-digit road loss; there's no ambiguity about it.

But for what it's worth-and many, many gamblers will disagree with me here, including a few who are actually successful-I'm mostly very skeptical of the "trend" method of handicapping. I'm open-minded, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of such trends have little or no predictive value whatsoever.

One reason I say this is because there are an infinite number of possible trends like this, so of course you can always go back after the fact and find as many as you want that have hit at a surprisingly high percentage. But you want to identify the ones that will continue to hit at that above chance percentage, and I think that is a very elusive task.

So, yes, I don't doubt it if someone tells me that in the last twenty years in the NFL, the team with the starting quarterback with fewer letters in his name has beaten the spread 60% of the time. But I refuse to make the inference from that to the conclusion that in the next game, I have a 60% chance of winning if I bet on the team with the starting quarterback with fewer letters in his name.

For all intents and purposes, I ignore trends and concentrate on trying to figure out who is the better team and by how much. But I think that puts me in the minority.

Buckeye:
I wholeheartedly agree with Philo's "trend"-betting analysis. To me, it is the difference between "causation" (information with predictive value) and "correlation" (what most trends really are, which may be coincidence based) that makes trends questionable. Trends also extend into past years when the team's make-up, coaching, personnel, competence, etc. may have been dramatically different. Trends often go over the boundary of what I call "temporal significance," in that they are too old and of little or no relevance to the game in question.

On the other hand, if you can find a "causal root" to the trend, then I call it an "angle," and angles are a very productive handicapping tool.

One handicapping angle I use in my college basketball handicapping that is a tad obscure is a 2-3 year old recruiting analysis. Instead of just concentrating on how many starters are back and how good the incoming freshmen are, I look to see where the upper class talent was ranked, by recruiting analysts I respect, and what bench jockeys may be more able to step up (have talent) on some teams than others. It helps with my power ratings and identification of teams that are likely to be underrated and overrated at the beginning and end of the season. It's like looking at free agent acquisition in the pros, but few have the recruiting info I do. (It has been a hobby of mine that predates betting.)

I tend to value "power ratings" as a significant and somewhat objective tool for handicapping. How one arrives at their own ratings is subjective, but once you develop a method or formula(s), then comparing two teams or players etc. to predict score or differential (spread) can be a good start to an objective approach.

Many publications post ratings and some handicappers will copy them, using their own home-grown tweaks. For instance, I will adjust the home court/field advantage in college sports up, for some teams, compared to most ratings I've seen. I feel it a bigger disparity than most magazines or Sagarin use.

Many handicappers use some form of power rating exclusively. I look at them as a starting point and as a way to throw some objectivity into handicapping. Positional stats match-ups, records, scoring averages, etc. are also important "quantitative" elements to consider.

Subjectively, factors like motivation, coaching acumen, "hot" and "cold" teams/players, revenge factor, contrasting playing styles, etc. also can be considered.

In most cases the more work you put into your handicapping, the better quality it will be. I do find that I can "over analyze" some factors and get caught up in one angle too much and forget about the big picture. But I make no claims of being a great handicapper at most sports. I'm always trying to learn from the success of others.

Turkoman1963:
While one can burn the midnight oil studying the trends and intricacies of a mid-season LSU-Vanderbilt battle, you can still lose your wager on a fluke play, a bad bounce, or a terrible call. I call this the "What could go wrong?" factor and it does play a part in my handicapping.

For instance, say I really like San Francisco at home versus New Orleans. The 49ers have won four straight while the Saints have been blown out three in a row. Add to this that New Orleans humiliated the 49ers earlier in the year when San Francisco's quarterback had the flu and now the quarterback is healthy--in fact, he's thrown 126 passes without an interception and was just named to the Pro Bowl!--and you can see why the 49ers are favorites. But why only 3 point favorites? Why is the line so low? The 49ers should kill them! When a line looks too good to be true, I become suspicious. Why? All factors point to a San Francisco blowout, yet that line won't budge off 3. Maybe there's something out there that I don't know about. It is this "What could go wrong?" factor that has saved me from many losing wagers.

On the other hand, if I still feel that San Francisco will win by three touchdowns, nothing will deter me, with the possible exception being an Act of God or a visit from my mother-in-law, the God-fearing, John Kyl-loving, I-will-change-you-and-get-the-hell-off-that-Internet-now, fun-loving-woman whose company I so enjoy.

I should say that I also discount trends in my handicapping. The fact that the New York Rangers have not lost at Ottawa in seven years after they win at Toronto has absolutely no bearing on my selections. This "trend betting" is one of the great ruses of our time. Who cares that Pittsburgh has not covered their next game after two consecutive road losses six years in a row? It's a fluke. The players are different, as are the coaches, stadiums, and refs.

What are some good sources of information for handicapping purposes and for sportsbetting in general?

Turkoman1963:
For soccer information, I go to sportinglife.com. For handicapping, I go to phoenixsports.com and sportslynx.com and search their soccer forums.

For football, I read all the sports sites: espn.com, sportsline.com, profootballweekly.com, covers.com, then I go to various forums including Major Wager to gain more insight.

For baseball, I read espn.com and the local papers of each team.

For basketball, I go to nba.com and also read the local papers.

I'm not a large enough bettor to spend so much time researching that handicapping becomes a full-time job, or to employ somebody else to do it. Instead, I try to gather the general information and then go to various forums to see the reasons behind other people's selections before making my own pick. (I do this just in case someone at Major Wager, for instance, reports on Saturday night that Jeff Garcia has got the flu and is doubtful for tomorrow's game, that kind of thing.)

The Philosopher:
If anything, there are too many sources of information nowadays. You're more likely to get buried in more information than you can realistically process than you are to be lacking anything.

There are many general sports websites that can be useful, such as those run by CBS Sports, CNN/SI, the Sporting News, ESPN, etc. Or you can use sites more specific to one sport, such as the one run by Pro Football Weekly. Plus, of course, there are always the non-virtual versions of these (you can subscribe to physical magazines and newspapers, in other words).

I've found that fantasy sports websites can often have a lot of information that overlaps with what is relevant for handicapping. For example, I get a lot of my day-to-day NFL information on roster changes and injuries and such from one called KFFL.

It can also help to check out local newspapers. The Web greatly facilitates doing this, as most newspapers are at least partly online. I haven't found this to be quite as valuable as I anticipated, because really a lot of the general sites I mentioned above are, in effect, already culling those sources for you and reporting most of the information that is at all important, but once in awhile you can get some information on something like whether coaches are leaning toward playing an injury-hampered player or not.

A good compromise between the national and the local is that a site like that of the Sporting News provides links to writers from local newspapers from each team in each major sport, and they post pretty lengthy updates two or three times a week. This isn't the best place for "breaking news" type stuff, but it's a way to get information on which players are having surprisingly good or bad seasons so far, and the like.

For news and statistics and such that are more openly gambling oriented, a couple of sites that people seem to use a lot are Covers and Vegas Insider.

To check the betting lines, you can either go to the websites of individual sportsbooks, or use Don Best (free for delayed odds, will cost you a fortune for live odds). There are lesser known lines services like that with different or fewer books, including Tip-Ex and one run by Jim Feist.

You can routinely pick up useful handicapping and wagering tips in the Forums right here at Major Wager. It's not uncommon, in fact, for posters to moan and groan about how their edge is declining in value precisely because so many "secrets" are being revealed.

For news on offshore sportsbooks and other gambling tidbits, there's Major Wager, the Prescription, Bettorsworld, and a few smaller sites.

The best source for books on gambling and sportsbetting is probably the Gamblers Book Club in Las Vegas. You can check them out in person if you go to Vegas, or you can get items by mail order from them.

I consider Gamblers Book Club to be a mixed bag at best. I've bought a few things from them, and I've browsed in their store in person at length. The problem is, a great deal of gambling material, including what you'll find there, is pure garbage. It's riddled with logical and mathematical howlers such as I've rarely seen outside a John Patrick "So You Want to Be a Gambler?" infomercial. So a lot of what you'll find in that store is of little or no value (not to mention you'll be paying $40 for a one hundred page large type "book" that looks likes something somebody typed up in his basement and had bound at the local Kinko's), but then again, you will also find worthwhile items there if you search long enough.

There are a lot more sources, but that's just a few off the top of my head.

Buckeye:
For football and basketball handicapping, I like covers.com, in particular. I also use many of the others mentioned already. For golf handicapping, one of the best cappers I've ever run across in any sport has his own website--Stanley's (www.tour-tips.com)--which is invaluable to any serious golf bettor. I also spend hours on golfonline's stats pages as well.

Philo brings up a very good tip, I know that I have gained a lot of insight through some fantasy stats and sites. It sharpens your awareness of players and teams and can help your handicapping skills. Yahoo's fantasy leagues have some stats that are as germane to betting as they are to selecting fantasy rosters.

I also use links off of various "watchdog" sites like Major Wager. Some other sites give links to hometown papers for teams, or team websites, that have some relevance.

I also use pre-season magazines and newsletters to develop power ratings. I typically grab up a half dozen or so and use them to check roster changes, draft analysis, and stats etc. in determining my initial ratings.

Once you've decided whom or what to bet on, how can you bet it most advantageously?

Turkoman1963:
This is an area where I want to continue to improve. Let's say I love Dallas against the New York Giants and the line around town is Dallas +3. Do I simply bet it at the book I use the most and be done with it? Only takes me 10 seconds or so to click in $110 to win $100 on Dallas +3. Or do I now begin my real work: shopping for the best price and the best line?

For instance, let's say there is a book that has no vig Fridays and I can play the game there at Dallas +3 $100 to win $100. Or I can shop for a book that offers money line wagers on Dallas. Now Dallas has to win for me to collect. Searching the net, I find five books ranging from Dallas +125 to Dallas +135. If I take Dallas +135, I now can wager $100 to win $135.

Or say we are talking about a basketball game, such as Seattle versus the Los Angeles Lakers. I simply go through my list of books and find the best price. Some books offer lower vig, say wager $105 to win $100 on basketball for one hour each day. Besides looking at the vig, I'm also shopping the lines. I might find, for instance, that Seattle is at +8 at most books, and +8.5 at some. In the end, I take the best combination of vig and the line.

The key to being a successful handicapper is to maximize your wins and to do that, you need to find the best bang for your buck. It's a buyer's market--all you have to do is start shopping.

The Philosopher:
It's hard to overstate how important vig shopping and line shopping are to successful sportsbetting.

Let's look at some numbers: If you're playing at standard vig, which is risking $11 for each $10 you stand to win, or "-110" odds, then in order to come out ahead, you have to pick at least 52.4% winners.

If instead you bet at -107, your break even point is to pick 51.7% winners. For -105, it's down to needing only 51.2%. -102 brings it down to 50.5%. And of course, if you can bet it at even money, you need to pick just 50% winners. In other words, if you can flip a coin, you can break even at sports betting.

Every one of these levels of vig are available offshore, including betting with no vig at all. You just need to know where and when to bet. (It also helps if you bet online, since some of the low vig and no vig deals are limited to online wagering.) If you place a bet at -110 when you could have bet the identical thing at a different time or at a different sportsbook for less vig, you're basically throwing money away.

Similarly, all else being equal, you will be a much more successful sportsbettor if you shop lines. This means having accounts at multiple sportsbooks, and monitoring their numbers so that you can place your bet most advantageously.

In the old days, before information transmission became basically instantaneous, it was common to find large discrepancies between what different books were offering. But even now, when lines are far more likely to coalesce around a narrow consensus, you will still routinely get a half point or a point better, or a few cents better on a money line, on most of your wagers if you shop several books than if you place all your wagers at one sportsbook.

Some bettors don't bother with these small discrepancies unless they fall on a "key" number that is unusually likely to land, such as the '3' or '7' in football. But this is a mistake. Granted, getting -2.5 instead of settling for -3 is a much bigger deal than getting +16.5 instead of settling for +16, but the latter is still worth taking advantage of. (I'm assuming here that the vig is the same throughout.)

Let's stipulate that we're talking about such an obscure number that there is only a 1% chance the game in question will land exactly on that number. Let me ask you this: If you could wave a magic wand and turn 1% of the losing wagers you've had in life into pushes, and turn 1% of the pushes into wins, would you do it?

There are other factors you can use to reduce or eliminate the house edge, but the two you should add to your arsenal immediately if you haven't already are vig shopping and line shopping.

Patton:
Definitely line shopping is the way to go. It starts with selecting books that offer lines that can differ from those of the crowd. Many books use Don Best to follow changes at other books, and keep their numbers in line to avoid getting too much action at an "old" number when those changes occur. Obviously, if all your books are in this category you won't get good numbers.

Once you've selected a number of books, you then have to find the one with the best line. You can purchase the Don Best Premium feed for $500 a month for instant access to the lines at the major offshore books, but that is unrealistic for most gamblers, especially me. Don Best also has a free service, Island Express, with fewer books and a 15 minute delay. I also use another free line service, Tip-Ex. This service uses netbots to update its site continuously with the odds for many different sports. For example, for NFL there might be 25 books quoted there, including popular ones like Canbet, WSEX, Royal, and Pinnacle. These services are not perfect, but they work for me.

Buckeye:
This aspect of the process, that I call "betting," as opposed to "handicapping," is a very important one that many newbies and even veterans overlook. It sometimes surprises me that astute handicappers, in golf for instance, would say getting -125 isn't that much better than getting -135 is, that it is not worth shopping for. I try to point out that that is either $10 less risked, for a $100 bettor, or over $7 more won for the same risk amount. Give me that difference bet after bet and it piles up.

Along with using line services, like Don Best, it is also important that you have the ability to play where the numbers are most advantageous. By this I mean that you must have funds in your account where the best lines can be had at the time you need to make your bets. Properly allocating your bankroll so that the more useful outs (best vig and/or opinionated lines) have the bigger portion of it is very important to keep your flexibility. Having some cushion in a service such as Neteller can also precipitate this flexibility.

Transfer fees and bonus rules can sometimes get in the way, or cut into your "line shopping savings/profits" when balancing funds among multiple books. You must keep this factor in mind when deciding how many accounts to use and how heavily to fund them. There are times that the slight benefit you'd gain by getting the very best line is more than offset by the cost, and it is better to let it go.

I often talk about how "useful" an out is. What I mean is how often it will be the most advantageous place for me to make my plays each week. The more useful an out is, the higher a priority it is to keep my account there well funded.

One part of line shopping that I have become more tuned in to, particularly in some sports like golf and college basketball, is betting into early, opening, virgin, lines. In golf, for example, I end up making 90%+ of my wagers on Monday or early Tuesday. The reason is that I have become painfully aware that the lines move against my wagers the vast majority of the time (I'd guess well over 80% of the moves are against me), whether I'm betting underdogs or favorites. So waiting until Wednesday, the more traditional day for most golf bettors to play their match-ups, has usually cost me dearly.

I think the difference is magnified in minor sports, but some money lines move 20, 30, even 50 cents between when I play them and when others do on Wednesday. Some say they wait for weather or tee times, but I factor those into dailies, not 72 hole matches very much.

I know that "steam chasers" wait for moves in major sports to play, but I am a handicapper, so I'd rather go with my line/ratings right away than hold back and get "wise guy righted" numbers all of the time. Besides, I can often "scalp out" of a match-up later, if weather or tee times get me to change my opinion. I very rarely do this, but it happens every once in a while.

The same scenario can be applied to the NFL. Some handicappers, and pros, like to hit the opening numbers on Sunday. Some online bettors will take advantage of -102 vig deals on Tuesday. Some may play during "restricted hours" to get -105 or larger parlay payoffs. Others wait for late news on injuries, line movements/steam, or because they don't have their handicapping done until Sunday morning and don't worry much about juice or early moves. Different timing is appropriate for different handicapping styles.

I would think that handicappers who trust their lines/number would be more inclined to bet into early lines as they may be softer than lines that have been beat on all week. There is nothing "squarer" than to play a juiced up favorite on Sunday just before kickoff. I play the vast majority of my football plays before Saturday, but many advocate playing favorites and overs at the early lines and underdogs and unders late, as the general rule of thumb is that Joe Public plays favorites and overs the majority of the time, and through the week and weekend the lines move accordingly. I'd say this is correct, in general, but I am a mediocre to poor football handicapper so I concentrate on juice more. I have not seen my particular underdog or under plays predominantly get better as kickoff approaches, on those rare occasions I watch line movement on the weekend, so I don't sweat it for the NFL. I think the better handicapper you are, the more those things make sense.

This brings up a related topic, taking leads or anticipating line moves. Middlers and scalpers, as well as sophisticated pro handicappers, seem to be very good at this skill. This is one area that I haven't looked at much, as I spend time line shopping when I am ready to bet, not a lot of time screen or line watching all week or day. I know that they move against my golf and college hoops plays the majority of the time, so I'd rather play those early. I do have some feel for which games might move in those sports, but I don't try to "time" moves much, mostly because I am a recreational player and can't watch the screen and make plays all day, due to my job. So overnights in college basketball, and early lines in other sports, are my preference. But I have no idea how to determine how baseball lines will move, or which NFL lines will go up or down. I am so bad at handicapping those sports, I'd likely guess wrong anyway.

But I'd say that whenever you decide is most advantageous to play--early, late, Friday, or whenever--then you should line and vig shop at that time. It may be worth looking at your plays to see if they consistently move for or against you during the day or the week. It might show you some betting angles that help your results, but the time investment is a consideration. Favorites and overs early may work for many, but if that doesn't match your handicapping skills, or your picks, then you may actually cost yourself in money and time.

The Philosopher:
Just to follow up on some of the points that have been made about line shopping, notice that to do it right requires having many sportsbook accounts, which in turn requires a much more substantial capital investment than you might expect.

Let's say that you intend to bet $50-$100 per game, and that you're confident you'll never have more than ten bets active simultaneously, and in fact probably rarely more than four or five. As a beginner, you might think you need only send $500-$1,000 to your favorite sportsbook to be able to do this, or maybe $1,200 or so if you want to be absolutely sure, and to be able to ride out at least a small losing streak without having to go to the hassle of sending more money.

But to shop lines, you need multiple accounts. And obviously you can't simply divide the same amount of money by the number of accounts you intend to fund. (If you have five accounts, and intend to make five bets, it's extraordinarily unlikely that you'll find the best betting opportunity for precisely one bet at each sportsbook.)

Ideally, you'd want to send enough to each sportsbook to cover you in the event that one of them turns out to have the best line and vig for every one of your bets. That can be unnecessarily extreme however. A better idea might be to send $750-$1,000 each to the two you suspect you'll have reason to use the most often, $500-$750 each to the two you think you'll use a fair amount, and $250-$500 to the one you think you'll only occasionally find the best number at.

In any case, you'll be investing a lot more money than you may have originally envisioned.

Turkoman1963:
It is imperative that you have at least five accounts if you want to truly increase your chances of being a profitable handicapper. Why take Miami at -9 when you can get them at elsewhere at -8? The odds of the line falling on 8 or 9 is minimal, I grant you, but when it does occur, I'm sure you would prefer the lower number.

A personal example: I loved the Toronto Raptors at home after a long road trip against a very tired Charlotte team that was playing its last road game of a grueling five games in seven day trip. Toronto was -7.5. I was going to shop around later that day and find -7, but I was going out for the day and, what the heck, they were going to blow them out, right? Well, I found out later from a couple of friends that a few books had the game at -6.5 an hour before tip off.

When the Raptors couldn't hit their free throws and Charlotte began draining three's, suddenly an 18 point cushion hovered around 9 with a few seconds to go. Still no worries, though, right? Toronto players were laughing it up, celebrating another victory as everyone just stood around when, all of a sudden, Baron Davis steals the ball. Why guard him, Raptors players must have thought, there's only a tick or two left? Davis heads for the basket but, sensing the clock, launches a 30 footer that...hits nothing but net. Toronto 110 Charlotte 103. I lose and my friends who found that book at -6.5 won. A valuable lesson.

The Philosopher:
One more quick point on betting strategies, since we've alluded to it in passing once or twice already. Many serious bettors swear by the method of "betting steam." What this means is that they do not necessarily do any handicapping, but instead concentrate on timing their plays so as to piggyback onto the handicapping of others.

When a major betting syndicate puts in a big bet, it will typically move the lines, sometimes substantially. So the strategy of the steam chaser is to ascertain which way the pros are betting by monitoring line movements, and then to jump on that same side as quickly as possible, preferably at a book where the line hasn't moved much yet.

And really how close you get to that pre-move number is crucial to this strategy. What I've gathered from reading the Major Wager forums and listening to people who've been in the business and such is that the pros that bet the line at the "original" number win more than they lose, the chasers who bet the line fairly close to where it started are probably break even or a little better, and the chasers who are slow and bet only after the line has moved more significantly probably are net losers in the long run, due to the infrequent occasions when the game lands right in that narrow area the line moved through before they caught it

One indication that betting the moves might be a successful strategy is precisely the fact that many books openly resent such players and take counter-measures against them. If steam chasers generally lost in the long run, you wouldn't expect the vitriol that books rain down upon them. You typically don't try to drive away your meal tickets.

How are odds expressed at a sportsbook?

The Philosopher:
Most sportsbooks that cater to an American clientele will use a system of "-" for favorites and "+" for underdogs. (International oriented sportsbooks will often give you the option of getting the odds in this format if you prefer.)

Specifically, if you see "-130" as the odds on the team you are interested in, this tells you that you must risk $130 dollars for every $100 you stand to win. (Or risk $1.30 to win $1.00, risk $65 to win $50, etc.) If you see "+180," this means that for every $100 you risk, you stand to win $180.

When you see people refer to something like a "20 cent line," they mean the differential between the favorite and the underdog. So if the favorite is listed as "-140" and the underdog is listed as "+120," then this is a 20 cent line due to the fact that favorite bettors are risking that 20 more than underdog bettors stand to get back.

If the favorite is "-120" and the underdog is even money (which I've seen expressed as "-100" or "+100"-it's the same thing), then that too is a 20 cent line. It's also a 20 cent line if, say, both teams are listed at "-110" and there is no underdog.

So if the favorite is "-170" and the underdog is "+140," this is a 30 cent line. If the favorite is "-115" and the underdog is "+105," this is a 10 cent line, or a "dime line." Etc.

You will also see odds expressed in the form "x to y," e.g., "7 to 1," "50 to 1," "5 to 2," "1 to 3," and so on (or "7-1," "50-1," "5-2," "1-3," and so on). In this case, you are risking the amount on the right to win the amount on the left. So, "7 to 1" means if you risk $1,000 and your team prevails, you'll win $7,000. "1 to 3" means you would have to risk $30 to win just $10.

One deceptive thing to be wary of, though I've rarely seen this offshore, is if you come across something like "6 for 1." When it says "for" rather than "to" it means they are counting your original stake as part of the winnings, and so is worse for the bettor.

For example, if I bet $100 at "6 to 1," I will either lose $100 or win $600. If I bet $100 at "6 for 1" I will either lose $100 or get back $600-my original $100 stake plus a profit of only $500.

There are other forms of odds that are commonly used in other countries, or that are conventional for certain sports or types of wagers. I will leave it to my colleagues to address some of these.

Buckeye:
This is one area where I think the "old school" way of expressing money lines as +120, -140 is more confusing to newbies and bettors from other parts of the globe, than a lot of other aspects of the betting process.

Most newbies to betting quickly understand spread betting and that the player must bet 11 to win 10, the difference being the book's profit. But the minute they see those money lines their eyes glass over. Those books that use decimal multipliers to express the odds make the most sense to me. 1.909, instead of -110, makes sense in that it is what you can multiply your stake by (like 110) to get your return (110 * 1.909 = 210). This also makes parlay calculations self-explanatory. Parlaying two games of -110 lines becomes a simple multiplication exercise when decimals are used (1.909 * 1.909 = 3.644) which makes your return 3.644 times your stake. That seems easier to understand than 13-5, which returns 18 for every 5 bet.

Patton:
I am relatively new to the sportsbetting scene, although I have bet the ponies for years. In horse racing, odds are expressed in terms of the amount to be returned for a winning wager (including the amount bet) to the amount bet. Thus, odds for a horse will be expressed "3-1," meaning a winning bet will return $3 profit for every $1 bet (or a total of $4 returned for a winning wager), or "5-2," meaning a return of $5 for every $2 bet (for a total of $7). So, it took me some time to get up to speed on even "old style" betting notations of -110 and the like.

The use of decimal pricing would probably simplify things for me, but many books I use do not support it (or at least I don't think they do), whereas everyone supports the old style.

Turkoman1963:
The key is that at most sportsbooks, you can request the format you feel most comfortable in: I prefer -120 to the more stately 1.80, but to each his own. You just have to make sure you know specifically what odds you are receiving.

Buckeye:
Some international books, which I call non-Vegas style, express odds as decimals, as I mentioned before. The confusing part of this is when line shopping on futures you may mistake them for the "to" price instead of the "for" price that Philo was warning about. Vegas-style outs will list the "to" figure, so be careful when comparing to these outs. Newbies to European or UK books will sometimes get fooled by this format.

Another popular way to express odds is with fractions, with the win amount first. So a -110 line would be listed as 10/11 instead. Many of the sites that use this format, also use a 9/10 (i.e., -111) as the default odds instead of 10/11. So as a bettor, you are getting slightly less favorable odds here than at a conventional book.

On a side note, I have read some posts speculating that the American method of expressing odds (e.g., -140/+120) is a subtle attempt to "trick" bettors into betting more on favorites (risk 140 to win 100) than underdogs (risk 100 to win 120). There is a rule of thumb that says betting favorites is inherently worse and harder to win with. So by "suggesting" that you stake more on favorites than underdogs, they say it increases the books' profits.

It is an interesting speculation, but I think bookies have traditionally not wanted to have to use calculators or deal in cents, etc. so they encourage round numbers be bet and returned to keep it easier. Even with online betting where that is of little concern anymore, old habits die slowly.

What is "vig"?

Buckeye:
Vig, which is short for vigorish, is a term used to describe the book's theoretical edge, or commission, on each bet. It is also sometimes referred to as the book's hold, particularly when looking at futures markets. For spread betting, balanced action would result in 11 dollars bet on each side (as an example) for a total of 22. As long as there isn't a push, the winner would be paid 21 and the book would keep 1. This 1/22 that is the book's commission is called the vig.

Most express it as a percentage. In this case, for spread betting, it is 4.545%. To compare to some popular casino games, the vig in craps is approx. 1/72 (1.389%) and in roulette it is 2/38 (5.26%) on a double zero wheel. It is a representation of the house's long term edge over time based on the mathematics of the game. Each and every bet has this "vig" inherent in it, barring a push.

In order for a bettor to win, he must win an adjusted percentage high enough to overcome or counteract this vig. For spread betting, at typical "lay prices" of -110 each way, that magic number is 52.38%. This break even percentage is what you need to surpass long term to win.

One interesting side note is that the farther away from even a money line goes, if the differential is held constant, the less vig is inherent. That is, the sportsbook is skimming a higher percentage of the players' money (assuming balanced action) on lines of -110/-110 than -130/+110, -160/+140, etc. This is why books have "break points" along the way where the differential is increased. So it might be a 20 cent differential up to -149/+129, then a 30 cent differential up to -199/+169, then 40 cents, etc.

A place like Canbet is a little unusual in that it keeps the vig percentage constant, so the differential expands gradually, making all the odds along the way identically favorable (except for slight rounding) to the -110/-110 starting point (-107/-107 for some sports). I can see the fairness in this, but obviously a bettor would prefer keeping the differential constant, as something like -200/+180 odds carries with it very little vig.

Patton:
This is a great description of vigorish. I like to think of the book as a middleman like a stockbroker, putting together people who want to be on opposite sides of a transaction. Instead of buying and selling shares of stock, the players are buying and selling sports teams. The vig is the commission the book earns for bringing the two parties together, just as a stockbroker earns a commission for bringing the buyer and seller of a stock together.

Buckeye:
Some may well disagree with my ideas about this subject, but I always think of vig like it is used in casino contexts. I have heard some say that the vig is dependent on your actual winning percentage, and is only paid by the winner. I disagree with this interpretation. In roulette, for example, the vig can be seen in payoff odds that are based on 36 numbers when there are actually 38 numbers on the wheel. Each bet has this 5.26% vig inherent in it. It matters not whether you win or lose; the vig is constant and a reflection of the theoretical edge.

If everyone at the table bets "10" and "10" hits and everyone leaves, the house's profit on that spin isn't 5.26%, obviously. Nor if the same situation happens and the spin is instead "0" and everyone loses is the house's profit 5.26%. But the vig is the expected long term mathematical edge, assuming balanced action, not the actual profit of one particular spin. It is based on the fact that if you played all 38 numbers every spin, you would lose 2/38 of everything bet.

Think about it as if you bet both sides of the same game, at the same spread line. You'd be sacrificing 1/22 and giving the book the vig. Some do this when they make a mistake and accidentally bet the wrong side, or if they change their mind before kickoff and want to get out of the bet. This is called "juicing out" of the bet. You sacrifice the juice, that is, pay the vig.

Vig determines the book's theoretical edge, rather than actual one, because a book's actual profits are affected by unbalanced action, money bet on both sides of line moves (by scalpers or middlers possibly), etc. It depends on the actual skill and policies of the book's linesmakers and managers.

I did read in one Vegas report that Vegas's take on football is closer to 5%, partly based on teasers and parlays and possibly the many square tourists that bet there, while their take on basketball is closer to 2.5%, and on baseball their take is smaller still.

What are some of the different bet types?

Patton:
Side: A wager on one or the other of the two teams (or "sides") in a particular game or contest, with a point spread.

Example: Lions -7 or Bears +7. One may either bet on the favorite Lions to win by more than 7 points, or one may bet on the underdog Bears to win, tie, or lose by fewer than 7 points. In effect, you just add 7 points to the Bears' score at the end of the game and see if that's enough for it to surpass the Lions' score.

Total: A wager on whether the total number of points scored by both teams is over or under a particular number.

Example: Lions-Bears Over 44.5 or Under 44.5. If the combined points the two teams score is 45 points or more, the Over bettors win. If the combined points the two teams score is 44 points or less, the Under bettors win.

Money line: A wager on the "straight up" winner of the game, with no point spread. Instead of giving up or getting points, as with a spread, you are risking more or less money. A winning bet on the favorite will return an amount less than even money, while a winning bet on the underdog will return more than even money.

Example: Lions -200 or Bears +160. If you risk $200 on the favorite Lions and they win, you win $100. If you risk $100 on the underdog Bears and they win, you win $160.

Parlay: A bet where you string together two or more wagers. You win if and only if all of the individual wagers that make up the parlay win. The payout takes into account the number of components in the parlay, and the odds for each, so that generally the more components, the higher the payout.

Example: Golden State -7, Portland +1.5, Washington-Philadelphia Under 190. This is a three team parlay, which typically will pay 6-1. You win the parlay if and only if you win all three of these components individually. You lose the parlay if you lose any of the components. (If you win some and tie some, you win a lesser amount.)

Teaser: A bet where you string together two or more side and/or total wagers, like a parlay, with the difference being that the line is adjusted a certain number of points on each one in your favor. In football you can generally move the line 6, 6.5, or 7 points in your favor, while in basketball you can generally move the line 4, 4.5, or 5 points. More unconventional numbers of points are available at some books.

Example: Consider the same point spreads as in the parlay example, only this time, the bettor is playing a three team four point teaser. He would have Golden State -3, Portland +5.5, and Washington-Philadelphia Under 194. (Note that each line is four points better than what the player received above.) Because the lines have been adjusted in the player's favor, the payoff is considerably less than for a parlay. It would be less than 2-1 at most books, as opposed to the 6-1 for the parlay.

Turkoman1963:
If-bet: A set of two wagers, where the second is conditional on the outcome of the first. In one version, the second bet is activated if and only if the first bet is won. In another version, the second bet is activated if and only if the first bet either wins or ties.

Example: If UCLA +14 risk $33 to win $30, then BYU +2 risk $22 to win $20. If UCLA wins, then you win $30 there, plus the second bet now counts, so you lose $22 or win $20 on BYU, putting you up either $8 or $50 overall. If UCLA loses, then you lose $33 there, and the second bet never happens.

Reverse or Action reverse: Like an if-bet, only operating in both directions. In addition to "if A then B," you are also placing a bet of "if B then A."

Example: If UCLA +14 risk $33 to win $30, then BYU +2 risk $22 to win $20; and if BYU +2 risk $22 to win $20, then UCLA +14 risk $33 to win $30. Determine the payoffs the same as with the if-bet above, just remember to calculate both if-bets that make up this reverse. In this instance, it works out that if both the UCLA and BYU bets win, you win $100. If the UCLA bet wins and the BYU bet loses, you lose $14. If the UCLA bets loses and the BYU bet wins, you lose $46. If both bets lose, you lose $55.

Interactive or Betting-in-progress: Bets placed after the event has already started, on a line that is continually adjusted as the event progresses.

Example: Early in a Bears-Eagles game with the scored tied 0-0, you may bet $55 to win $45 on the Bears, or $50 to win $50 on the Eagles. Later in the first half with the Bears now up 21-0, you may bet $90 to win $10 on the Bears, or $15 to win $85 on the Eagles.

The Philosopher:
Halves, quarters, or periods: Sides or totals wagers placed on just one part of a game (first or second half; first, second, third, or fourth quarter; first, second, or third period).

Example: Rams are favored by 15 over the Falcons, with a total of 49.5. But for the first half only, the spread might be Rams -8, with a total of 25. Only the points scored in the first half of the game determine the outcome of wagers placed on those lines.

Action points: Wagers where the amount won or lost varies depending on the margin by which the side or total beats the spread or loses to the spread. You wager a certain amount per point, with a cap of a certain number of points.

Example: Baltimore is favored over Cincinnati by 7. You bet Baltimore -7, $11 to win $10 per point, cap of twenty points maximum. If Baltimore wins 27-19, you win $10 (because they beat the spread by 1 point). If Baltimore wins 37-10, you win $200 (because they beat the spread by 20 points or more). If Baltimore wins 16-10, you lose $11 (because they lost to the spread by 1 point). If Baltimore wins 21-20, you lose $66 (because they lost to the spread by 6 points). If Baltimore loses 43-0, you lose $220 (because they lost to the spread by 20 or more points).

Pleaser, or Reverse teaser: A bet where you string together two or more side and/or total wagers, like a parlay, with the difference being that the line is adjusted a certain number of points on each one in your favor.

Example: Consider the same point spreads as in the parlay example earlier, only this time, the bettor is playing a three team four point pleaser. Golden State -11, Portland -2.5, Washington-Philadelphia Under 186. (Note that each line is four points worse than what the player received in the parlay example.) Because the lines have been adjusted against the player, the payoff is considerably greater than for a parlay. It would pay perhaps 18-1, as opposed to the 6-1 for the parlay.

Buckeye:
Futures: Bets made on future events, often outcomes of an entire season.

Example: Who will win the Super Bowl? Which horse will win the Kentucky Derby? Who will win the Masters? Who will win the World Series? New York Knicks total victories for the season, over or under 45.

The Philosopher:
Round robin: Combination of parlay wagers, where you are betting all possible parlays for a certain number of teams. Just as an action reverse is simply two if-bets (and thus if your sportsbook doesn't offer action reverses, you can always create them yourself out of if-bets anyway), a round robin is simply multiple parlays.

Example: Round robin of two team parlays with Golden State -7, Portland +1.5, Washington-Philadelphia Under 190. This round robin would yield a total of three such two team parlays, namely 1) Golden State -7, and Portland +1.5. 2) Golden State -7, and Washington-Philadelphia Under 190. 3) Portland +1.5, and Washington-Philadelphia Under 190. The wager is graded exactly the same as if you had bet each of these three parlays individually.

Buying points: This is not a type of wager in itself, but is a way to modify a wager. The player pays less favorable odds in exchange for moving the spread in his favor. (Much more rarely offered is selling points, which would mean that the player gets more favorable odds in exchange for moving the line against him.)

Example: The line is Chargers +7 for the conventional odds of -110. The player buys a half point. So his wager becomes instead Chargers +7.5 at odds of -120.

Props: The miscellaneous, or "none of the above" wagers.

Example: Pretty much anything we haven't already discussed. Holt over or under 5.5 receptions in the Super Bowl. Woods or Azinger to finish ahead of the other in the British Open. At least one team will or will not score three consecutive times in the Packers-Steelers Monday Night Football game. Rams points scored in the Super Bowl versus Bryant points plus rebounds in his basketball game the same day.

Now that we have defined them, what more can we say about these bet types and their pros and cons?

Patton:
Betting on sides has been a staple of gambling from the beginning, and is probably the most popular wager in terms of number of wagers and amounts wagered. Like poker, the basics of which are fairly easily learned but take a lifetime to master, defeating the spread is a task that, over the long haul, eludes the overwhelming majority of gamblers.

Totals are probably the second most popular form of wager, and also a fairly simple concept to grasp.

Once one moves beyond straightforward sides and totals wagering the complexity increases geometrically, at least in my view, making such wagers beyond the ability of the neophyte player. Sure, if you want to have some fun, or experiment, I don't mean to say they're off limits. But if you're serious about making some money it seems to me you should first understand these types of bets fully, and attaining such an understanding does not usually come quickly or easily. And that doesn't mean merely understanding the rules for each type of wager, but the mathematical intricacies of each, which has a direct bearing on your ability to turn a profit.

I do have a comment on futures wagers specifically. I cannot see the advantage of such bets given that one's money is tied up for a long period of time, up to six months or more. Capital is the gambler's stock in trade. And a profit is made in most businesses by constantly turning over stock as quickly as possible on a profitable basis as often as possible. You don't want to just let your money sit idle somewhere for months.

Turkoman1963:
The if-bet and the reverse are excellent choices for money management. They're ideal for when you have two games you want to bet that are starting too close together for the first to be settled before the second starts, and you don't have enough available in your account to bet on both of them.

In our example of betting UCLA and BYU in an if-bet, you only have to have $33 in your account. Instead of having to pass on the second game entirely, at least with the if-bet you have a conditional bet on it depending on what happens with your UCLA bet first.

Granted, you also could get action down on both teams by parlaying them. But I like the if-bet option, because if you go 1-1 on a parlay, you lose everything. If you go 1-1 on our if-bet example by winning your UCLA bet and losing your BYU bet, you're up $8.

With the interactive, or in-progress, wagers, I like the way you can cash out early to preserve a win, or lock in a small loss before it gets worse.

In our Bears-Eagles example, where Chicago has taken an early 21-0 lead, if you started off by betting on the Bears when they were risk $55 to win $45, you can now play the other side and in effect sell out of this position for a tidy profit. That way if the Eagles do unexpectedly come back and win, you've already got your money.

Or if you, unfortunately, bet the Eagles initially, and they're now down 21-0, that sounds awful, right? But is it? If Philadelphia is going to be blown out anyway, you can still play the other side and sell out of your position for something. You come out behind, but at least you've mitigated your losses.

The other reason people play interactives is that they're fun. A July Montreal-Houston baseball game can be fun if you are wagering throughout the game on the contest.

Buckeye:
Some futures are offered up to a year, or more, ahead of the planned event. Other futures, like non-major golf tourney futures or NASCAR race futures, may be much shorter term as they are often posted only a few days before the event starts.

Almost all sports offered have some kind of future bet now available. For example, in golf you can not only find futures for each PGA tour tourney, and major futures months in advance, you can find futures markets on who will win the PGA tour money title or lead the European Order of Merit and even markets on Buy.com events. LPGA and Senior tour futures have also started popping up and other tours events are regularly offered by "Euro"-based shops.

Another type of future is the season win totals for football or other sports. In these "future/prop hybrids", your money is still tied up for weeks, or months, until a conclusion. The difference is that instead of 20 or 150 possible "winners" you are only betting on a single team's total result.

There are infinite possibilities with futures and props. The more offered by an out, the more likely some will be soft and a knowledgeable handicapper can beat them. Statistician and "numbers" handicappers like prop bets because they have more opportunity for softness by nature. They feel the linesmakers are spread too thin trying to accurately gauge action and accuracy with these lines. An example of this is that one gambling website proprietor was banging NBA props at an out with such regularity, and success, that they ended up hiring him to be their linesmaker for those bets the next season.

The Philosopher:
Parlays I want to leave to Buckeye because he's our resident parlay nut. But I'll make a few comments on some of these other bet types.

I think a lot of bettors automatically bet with the pointspread without really thinking about money line wagers, but you don't want to overlook any of your options.

To know whether it's better to bet the spread or the money line requires researching and crunching numbers to see how often teams win straight up when they are favored by a certain number of points or are underdogs by a certain number of points. I've looked into that for the NFL, and my tentative conclusion is that favorites are overrated on the money line. Actually conventional wisdom has it that favorites are overrated on the pointspread, which I tend to agree is, to a small degree, true. But I think the difference is even a little more pronounced on the money line.

So I find that money line underdogs are quite often more appealing than betting them with the points at -110. Pretty often they are roughly equivalent, in my estimation, to betting with no juice. On the other hand, it's quite rare that I prefer to bet a favorite on the money line rather than giving up the points at -110.

There are two main things I look at when considering a teaser wager. First, you want to examine what range of numbers you are encompassing with your additional teaser points. In football, moving the line enough to get on the right side of a '3' is a very big deal. Crossing a '7' or a '10' is fairly valuable. Crossing the '0' is, due to the existence of overtime, basically of no value whatsoever. All the other numbers fall somewhere between these extremes, with '4,' '6,' and a few others having considerable value. So using a teaser to move the line seven points from, say, +1 to +8 is worth much more than moving the line from, say, -18 to -11. There are a lot more plausible numbers in the former case where the game could land.

Second, you want to look at the projected total for the game. All else being equal, a low scoring game stands a slightly better chance of landing close to the spread (and thus within the teaser points) than does a high scoring game.

On the in-progress betting, I would agree with Turk that it can be psychologically appealing to sell out of a position in order to lock in modest profits or in order to mitigate potential losses, but my opinion is you should try not to approach it that way. You should treat each potential wager as new and unrelated to what came before. You want to bet it if you think it has value, and pass otherwise. You don't want to bet it based on how it fits psychologically with what you already have on the game. You should pretend you don't even know what you previously bet on the game. They are independent wagers.

As far as wagering on halves and quarters and such, some experienced gamblers find second half betting in particular to be appealing. Often, the bookmakers seem to follow a fairly mechanical system for setting the second half line. Especially when there are numerous games going at the same time, it's difficult to assess each one individually, so they'll fall back on fairly simplistic rules, such as if the home team was favored by 7 for the game as a whole, and the score is tied at half time, then the second half line should favor the home team by such-and-such number of points.

Now a savvy gambler knows that not all half time ties are the same, so if he has been watching the game closely, he'll use his knowledge of which team has been dominating so far, which team has suffered key injuries, or what the particular flow of the game has been like, in order to handicap the second half and take advantage of any weakness in the line.

Action points come in handy when you think your team could win big, but is also at risk to lose close. So if you like the favorite at -3.5, and in fact think their winning by a blowout is very realistic, and you further believe that if they do fail to cover, the most likely way will be their winning by 3, an action points wager could be called for. You get the upside of that blowout win, but you lose virtually nothing if they fail to cover by that half point.

Two things to keep in mind about action points: One, they tie up a lot of capital. You have to commit the full amount of your maximum possible loss. If you bet, say, $11 to win $10 and take 40 action points, you have to set aside the entire $440 maximum potential loss, even though in the long run you'll typically win or lose about $100 on the wager.

Two, the action points wager type is so uncommon that the phone clerks typically have no clue about it. At the few places I have played it, I've typically ended up having to explain the wager to the clerks, and they often screw it up anyway. Make sure you understand this bet type well if you're going to use it, because it's unlikely you'll get much help from the book.

On futures, I agree with Patton that you need to take into account the fact that you are tying up your money for an extended period of time. This is money you could be turning over multiple times in day-to-day gambling on the games themselves, or just earning interest on for several months. That doesn't make them a bad bet necessarily, but it is one factor to keep in mind when assessing their value.

You should also be aware that futures that are not two-sided (yes or no, over or under, etc.) tend to have much higher juice. If you calculate the percentage of the money wagered that the book is holding for its World Series futures, Super Bowl futures, etc., you'll typically find that it is much worse for the player than is the case for conventional straight bets.

But I think this factor is overrated by some, because it is also true that futures odds tend to vary significantly more from book to book than do most other odds. So if you shop Super Bowl lines at, say, a dozen books, and you imagine a hypothetical book that has whatever the best odds are at any of those books for each team, that hypothetical book will typically be holding little or nothing. Often it would even be paying out more than it takes in. So line shopping can be even more important with futures than with straight bets.

Buying points is usually a bad idea, in my opinion. I'll speak to football, since that's primarily what I bet. Again, like with teasers, you want to focus on the "key numbers" that land the most often.

Points commonly cost an extra ten cents per half point, meaning the standard odds of -110 get bumped up to -120 if you move the line a half point in your favor, -130 for a full point, etc. The only number that it is clearly beneficial to buy on and off for that price is the '3,' however, not coincidentally, this is the one number books will charge you extra for (and indeed, some books won't let you buy on and off at all, for any price). The '7' and the '10' seem to be valued about right at ten cents, and I think moving on or off any other number is unwise.

So buying on and off the '3' for an inflated price, or the '7' or '10' for the regular price, probably won't help or hurt you much in the long run. They're pretty much a wash. Buying points anywhere else is just throwing money away.

I don't have much experience with props myself, but they definitely have the reputation of being beatable, as Buckeye says. There are serious gamblers who make a very nice profit shopping for props and punishing soft lines, to the point that some books resent them, on the grounds that they offer props as a loss leader and a courtesy to their "regular" players. They don't appreciate pros coming in and playing exclusively props.

I'll also note in closing that a few of the bet types we've defined are quite rare and you won't find many books that offer them. For instance, whereas halves are quite common now, quarters and hockey periods and such are not. Some of the bet types you'll only infrequently find include in-progress wagering, action points, and pleasers or reverse teasers. Almost every book has futures and props, but the quantity offered varies drastically.

Buckeye:
Parlays are one of the most misunderstood, misused, and unfairly bashed bets available, in my opinion. Many people, who I affectionately refer to as "flat bet bigots," will scold, condemn, and vilify any reference to parlays by anyone in the forums. While I agree, in principle, that most bettors should stay completely away from parlays, it is the reasons most often given that send me on a rant. Most of them are fallacious, ignorant, or mathematically unsound. Let's take a look at some of the most common criticisms of parlay betting:

1. The vig is worse when you combine bets into parlays than if you simply bet them individually.

Spread parlays are those that involve a combination of all -110 lined spread bets. They are most often seen in football and basketball, since those sports are "spread based." One of the fairest knocks against parlays is that most outs round off the odds in a way that increases the juice compared to if they calculated the odds out exactly. This is true for two, four, five team and higher parlays, but the difference for some parlays is very small, especially on two teamers, and three team parlays actually have less juice because of the rounding.

Think of it this way: The break even point for straight bets at -110 is 52.38%. For a