Bettor Charged with Threatening Athletes Including Patriots
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
Seems like a pathetic little scumbag, who would probably soil himself at the first hint of any real world physical confrontation. But of course, terroristic threats should be prosecuted to fullest extent of the law. As a side note, I wonder how much of this goes on that we never hear about. I didn’t get the impression that any of the athletes were involved in the betting with him, but it’s a world full of bottom feeders. I’d imagine more than one of them has attempted these tactics.
Agreed and hope, since he used a racist epithet, hate crime charges are added. But I would be shocked if he did win that much and was still in the country.
This story is terrible but the fact that Rovell was effectively doing this guy's PR is going to make PMT even better to listen to on Friday. Rovell may have to delete his Twitter account when this is all said and done.
God, I hate these types of stories. They're all lying cons, maybe with a dash of luck, and a definite slice of sportsbooks generally not disputing because it's free advertising and makes people think they can win. There are a very few people who win, but they aren't the ones who are talking.
Last edited:
I don't have any idea really how sports betting works (I've never placed an actual bet, ever), but I'm in a family football pick'em pool where we select three games a week, against the spread. Year in and year out I finish, against the spread, at about a .550 mark. Nothing to write home about, but nothing to sneeze at either. What kind of money could I be making if I actually decided to do this and try to make money off it, if I kept winning at a .550 clip?
If you can't figure out that math, maybe you shouldn't try to make a living off beating the odds
Rovell would pump up Hannibel Lecter if Lecter's sports-themed cookbooks sold well.
I think I've read that with the standard vig that break even is slightly less than 53%
Isn't .550 even,. after taking account the vig?
Zero, assuming same $ bets, and traditional -110 lines, no?
Ha ain't that the truth.If you can't figure out that math, maybe you shouldn't try to make a living off beating the odds
Yeah doesn't seem like I'd win much. Well, another reason to not get into sports gambling!
One of 4 things will happen:
1.) Your 0.550 mark is simply a lucky streak. Once there's real money on it, you're expected winning percentage will revert to the 0.500, which, of course, means you'll lose money.
2.) Your 0.550 mark is the result of skill/strategy. But your strategy will change ever so slightly when there's real money involved, causing your winning percentage to revert back to 50%, meaning you'll lose money again.
3.) You'll become addicted to gambling.
4.) Your 0.550 mark is the result of skill/strategy. But you'll find it difficult to parlay that into real money once the vig is taken into account. Hey, but get a good streak going and you can buy yourself a nice dinner some night.
Ha, the real answer is that there's no frigging way I'll ever get into actual sports gambling. Zero chance. I don't think it's a lucky streak...it's held consistent over a three year period, so I guess maybe it's luck but I don't think so. I just think I win a little more than I lose but it's not enough to make a living off it, nor would I want to try. I just was wondering about the people who DO make a living doing this, how good do they have to be in order to WIN vs. Vegas. Clearly, I'm not good enough.
I don't get why the government uses initials in its affidavit. It's not all that difficult to determine the identities of Patriots players JE and RG.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/press-release/file/1255816/download
Also, it is very satisfying that the government used the article from that simpleton Rovell to corroborate the obtained evidence against him. I wonder if he gets paid on referrals from justice.gov?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/press-release/file/1255816/download
Also, it is very satisfying that the government used the article from that simpleton Rovell to corroborate the obtained evidence against him. I wonder if he gets paid on referrals from justice.gov?
I found this kind of interesting so I built a rudimentary simulation. I'm sure there are tons of things I didn't think through and many resources are available that go into this a lot more in depth/accurate than I was, but here's what I found:
1. I assumed you'd place a bet on 3 games per week for all 17 weeks of the NFL season, so 51 games, and that you would win 28 of those games (.549). I assumed you'd wager $110 per game and would win $100 per successful bet.
2. For the season you would have risked $5,610 ($110 x 51) and would win $5,880 ($210 x 28) for a gain of $270 or 4.8% more than you risked.
3. If you won 26 games instead of 28, you'd be down $150. If you win 30 games, up $690.
4. The two observations that immediately occurred to me (and are related) is the need to account for bankroll (i.e. you don't need to have the full $5,610 since you can roll winnings week to week, but also must cover the losings) and variance (the order the wins and losses occur). I don't know what would be considered "standard" for how many bets you'd want in your bankroll, but in the situation I ran a bankroll of $660 (6 bets) gets you through the season leaving you with $930, a pretty solid 41% return. That bankroll covered a reasonably bad streak (winning just 7 of the first 18 games or 38.9%). In reality you'd need a much larger bankroll to cover longer down periods and year to year variance, which again lessens the ROI in even the best case circumstances.
5. A final point is that you would also have to pay taxes on any winnings, which would further reduce your "winnings".
In conclusion, yes, if you could continue winning at a .550 clip (a big if) you would make some money off this, but the risks are likely not worth the meager returns.
You can improve your profitablilty by playing st a low vig book with -105 lines instead of -110.
Standard guidance on bankroll management says you want each wager to be about 1-2% of your bankroll, maybe more for higher confidence plays. You can be more aggressive than this and use something like a fraction of what the Kelly Criterion recommends for each play, but you’d need a pretty sophisticated system to do so.
Last edited:
r
This is probably right for most people. As for #2, I believe a necessary ability of a good bettor is to not think about how much money you have on the line. What’s important is that you’re striving to always make good decisions, and the rest will work itself out over time, A $5,000 loss doesn’t reallt matter. It has to happen as part of the natural process of making money. If you’re worrying about the money, then your emotions will start to deep into your decision making process.
And here I assumed he was making a sarcastic joke about betting way too much for your bankroll and putting yourself at risk of ruin. Hmmmmm....
Might not be a great source, but I'm fairly confident the quoted part is accurate or close enough.
"All wagers being equal, point spread bettors must win 52.4% of the time to break even with 10% juice (a.k.a. vig). A professional bettor usually wins around 53.5% of the time, meaning they have just over a 1% advantage.
Some of the world’s best sports gamblers can win 55% of their point spread wagers, leading to a 2.6% edge. But again, 1% is around the average advantage for a pro bettor."
https://www.thesportsgeek.com/blog/which-bettors-are-able-to-avoid-4-figure-wagers-on-sporting-events-6169/
I've wagered over a million dollars a year for the past 2 years, and I don't disagree with any of that at all. My purpose wasn't to refute anything in your previous post, but instead to point out that I thought @Lose Remerswaal was making a completely different, sarcastic joke. (I could very well be wrong in that, in which case it would be the exact opposite of a joke flying over my head...whatever that is called)
Ah. You're probably correct and I wasn't paying enough attention and it went over my head. I didn't even really notice your post that he was responding to. I was just reading some of the posts that were saying roughly, "you couldn't make enough money," and I was thinking shit, an edge like that you could make a killing! I used to play poker fairly seriously and I know that it's small edges over many bets that make lots of money, of course, with correct bankroll management.