- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 16,988
- Reaction score
- 0
That entire conversation was never about if Sham makes money betting or how good he is at betting. Go back to the beginning of it. It's about him telling others how to bet and that they shouldn't bet on fighters who are underdogs that they don't give a >50% chance of winning. There are loads of successful bettors that bet underdogs that they don't give a >50% chance of winning. Shit, people do this all of the time with props. They are betting +600 props that they don't see that result happening >50%. Same thing with people doing parlays at deeper + odds. They don't necessarily see that parlay hitting >50%.
It's incredibly arrogant to tell others how to bet when I've seen people be successful betting with loads of different strategies. But more importantly, if someone is close to correct on their capping long term and they are playing dogs they see with +EV, they will be winning long term on fighters they don't see having a >50% chance.
So I have no clue about Sham situation as I haven't read it. However, you are correct that to be successful you need not stear clear of fighters who are underdogs that they don't give a >50% of winning. That whole piece of logic right there is folly and I seen it most attributed to Luca and for what he calls "the 51% rule". That is to say, if you don't believe a fighter has a 51% chance of winning you should not bet him. Well that might be a personal preference, but it isn't back up within equation or statistical empirical data demonstrating the negative consequences. In actuality, there is documentation statistical proof that playing underdogs is profitable.
Everyone has their own bedding style and can learn from other people, but as long as you use correct bankroll management and stay away from Multi leg parlays plays you will likely fare OK long-term.