Posts by Jamie Rivera78

Walter Edwards said:Look, I don't look at odds that way. There’s no such thing as a "profitable" odd per se (like saying 1.50 is good but 1.30 isn't). It's just about whether an odd is worth the stake or not—and that could be anything from 1.01 to 1000. Doesn't matter. As long as I judge it as a value play, it's a go. That's when the sportsbooks come into play, seeing which one gives me the best juice.
You can't reduce serious betting down to just the odds (even though they're obviously a huge part of the game), just like you wouldn't pick a parlay based solely on head-to-head stats, team news, recent form, or home-field advantage.

Also, there aren't any limits on FanDuel; it all just depends on which market you're hitting and how many people are actually willing to take your bet.

That's pretty much my headspace too.
What you said about FanDuel is spot on. Usually, if I put in the work to hunt down a better line, it pays off.

Walter Edwards said:Look, you clearly missed my point entirely. It doesn't matter how many times you hit a 1.01 odd in the long run—and I’m talking long run, like years, not just a month—it’s still a losing game. Doesn't matter if you play it once a month or whatever. And honestly, it doesn't matter which sportsbook you use because a 1.01 odd only nets you 1% on your stake. It’s not about the house; it’s about the math. That tiny return is pathetic. Why would you risk $1,500 just to scrape together $15? How often can you even do that in a month? What kind of profit is that? Plus, on sites like FanDuel, they might not even accept your bet, or they'll just flat-out reject you if your stake is too high.

And no, I'm not saying betting on 5.00 odds is somehow better; I'm just saying 1.01 is a joke. But hey, that's just my take. You've got yours, so go ahead and try it if you want.

There are basically three things to address here.
1. I get it, 1.01 doesn't do it for you because the payout is tiny and your bankroll grows at a snail's pace. Me? I play to make money, even if it's small change. From what I've seen, at least 90% of players end up in the red.
2. Where you actually place your bets matters a ton. For example, right now, the "under 5.5 goals" line for Manchester-Tottenham is sitting at 1.02 on DraftKings, but over on FanDuel, it's 1.08. That's four times the profit. To me, that’s where the value lives, and it makes a massive difference. Almost every book out there, except for FanDuel, squeezes huge margins out of those tiny odds, making it a total waste of time. FanDuel is the outlier.
3. FanDuel actually accepts your bets as long as you're within the limits. And the limits are pretty high.
From what I can tell, most people stick to the 1.10-1.60 range. I also notice our local pros rarely touch anything over 2.00. Turns out, there's no money in that either. So, why don't you enlighten us? Which odds do you think actually pay off?

Walter Edwards said:Chasing 1.01 odds is a losing game in the long run. You’re basically risking a massive stake just to see a tiny bit of turnover with zero real profit to show for it. People have already warned you about this multiple times, and honestly, I'm not going to waste my breath again. Go ahead, try it yourself and see how it plays out—maybe you've cracked some secret code. Some lessons are just better learned the hard way.

Man, you clearly didn't read a single word I wrote.
1. I only hit those 1.01 bets once in a blue moon.
2. Where you actually place your bets when hunting low odds matters big time.
3. I'll take a tiny win over nothing any day of the week.
Do you honestly think chasing huge longshots (like, anything over 5) is somehow more profitable?

Jack Johnson6 said:Exactly. It doesn't matter if you're chasing small, big, or medium odds. What matters is having an actual reason to believe that bet is worth your cash.

And look, those underdog lines won't be unrealistically high because casual players mostly ignore them anyway. They just hammer away at the favorites. That’s why it’s such a joke trying to make money betting on the massive names—like Real Madrid, Man City, or Novak Djokovic. You're basically throwing money away.

I'm with you 100%. Chasing the heavy favorites day in and day out is just a one-way ticket to losing your shirt in the long run.

Jack Johnson6 said:just because the odds on FanDuel look juicy doesn't mean you're actually getting value.

Winning consistently really just boils down to being better at calculating probabilities than the market or the sportsbook is.

That 1.22 odd on FanDuel implies the market thinks there's an 81.9% chance of it happening. But if you factor in the commission, you'd need to nail those picks at an 82.6% clip just to break even. And obviously, if you actually want to make money, you've gotta aim higher than that.

Before you dive into stuff like that, you better have a damn good reason to believe you can read the odds better than the house.

The real headache with those tiny odds is that most casual bettors only touch stuff like that, which drives the value down. It's pretty rare to find a low-odd bet that's actually worth the risk.

You can use that exact same logic for a 10.00 underdog. The whole thing comes down to: are you going to hit once in ten tries? Basically, are you smarter than the bookie?
The truth is, most people chase those small odds, which is why they drop. But I haven't really seen that happen with over/under bets. In fact, I often see those small odds actually climb right before kickoff. Honestly, based on my own math, small odds aren't any worse than the big ones—provided you actually know how to pick your matchups.

Just wanted to point out how much of a difference the sportsbook makes when you're playing the low odds.
Man City-Swansea under 5,5
DraftKings 1,02
FanDuel 1,09

under 4,5
DraftKings 1,15
FanDuel 1,22
The gap is actually massive. It might even make someone rethink what's actually worth betting on depending on which bookie they use.

Bryan Adams6 said:Man... just watch your step here. I don't know how deep your pockets are or if you can actually afford to mess around with stakes like that, but I've seen every kind of disaster attempt in my time... and honestly? Not one of them worked out. I personally know guys who went out and took out high-interest loans from sharks just because they were chasing an "X" using Martingale, thinking the next one was a "sure thing." It’s a fast track to hitting rock bottom.

There are always horror stories floating around gambling in general, usually because people have zero clue how to manage their bankroll. And look, if you can't handle your money, it doesn't matter if you're betting on a 1.01 underdog or a 1.80 flyer. You'll end up in the exact same hole.
It's always better to take a tiny win than to lose everything.
The people taking out loans to cover their losses? They definitely don't know the first thing about bankroll management.

Eric Fox7 said:You’re getting your wires crossed a bit here.😉

Did you even bother reading the threads I linked?

Look, I don't just chase numbers blindly. If the math says the risk-to-reward ratio actually makes sense, then I’m in. Obviously, I’m not out here lighting money on fire by betting on a 1.01 line every single time.
Also, you gotta realize that the odds over on DraftKings are way better. What looks like a pathetic 1.01 elsewhere might be at least a 1.03 here (and even higher if you catch it live), so the actual risk isn't nearly as bad as what's being claimed in that thread.
Bottom line? I can agree that chasing those tiny 1.01 margins is probably a losing game at most sportsbooks, unless you're playing where the juice is actually worth it.

steeltiger18 said:You miss just once, and suddenly you’re chasing your tail, needing to hit a hundred more bets just to claw back your initial $1,500. Honestly, that kind of math doesn't even make sense to a sane person. It's pure insanity. 🤷

Long-term profit is the only thing that matters; everything else is just noise. Honestly, looking back at that game against the Irish, the odds of seeing over six goals were so microscopic that even a 1.01 line felt like a steal.
Look, if I saw things starting to go south, I’d just cut my losses immediately. I wouldn't sit there watching the ship sink—I'd close the position right then and there, making sure I didn't lose more than 20% of the play.
You can't even begin to wrap your head around what "logic" actually means until you've stepped back and looked at the bottom line after a full month. At the end of the day, if you walked away with a profit, you crushed it—I don't care what the odds were. Period.

So, I actually placed a bet yesterday that there’d be under 6.5 goals in the US vs. Canada match at odds of 1.01. Both games ended up being 0-0.
It’s a tiny win, but hey, I’ll take it.

Noah Thompson said:I don't know if it's actually the best one or what? You got any better ideas? 🙂

Look, I haven't got a better suggestion, but this kind of gambling is always the riskiest play you can make. Especially if you're just looking to grab some fast cash.

Noah Thompson said:The whole gimmick is that this guy isn't promising you'll get filthy rich... he claims it's got nothing to do
with doubling down on bets... check the link:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/no-BS-roulette...item27bc1c1722

I'm gonna grill him with a few more questions before I decide anything..

And this one is pretty funny too lol:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ROULETTE-SYSTE...item3f0b41d1dc

From what I can tell, most of these setups work by scraping together tiny wins. But those inevitable, massive losses? They always come for you.
Think about it: if every player was using this exact system, do you really think the casino would be sitting there bleeding money constantly? Yeah, right. Not a chance. That zero on the wheel is designed specifically to bleed players dry in the long run.
Sure, you might catch a lucky streak and walk away with some extra cash for a night. But after 1,000 spins? You’re basically guaranteed to go bust.
Is that really the smartest or safest way to try and make an extra twenty bucks?

Noah Thompson said:I might give it a shot. I saw this roulette strategy on eBay
for like 15 bucks, but it doesn't even look like a standard system
where you just double down. The guy sold like 40 copies and apparently
everyone gave him five stars, claiming he guarantees about $25 a day...
thinking about pulling the trigger. What do you guys think?

Most of these systems are total garbage. They all promise miracles and massive payouts. Honestly, I highly doubt you're gonna stumble onto some secret math they haven't already exploited. But hey, if you're dying to be curious, buy it and see for yourself. Then come back and let us know if you actually cleared that extra $25 a day.

Noah Thompson said:this one’s a single-zero wheel... but look, I played maybe 50 rounds
and just once did I hit the opposite color 12 times in a row.
now I'm thinking about testing things out, like if I play with a $10 chip or
maybe $20. In the short term, I can hit my goal, which is $20...
instead of playing with $1 bucks or whatever... you get more chances that way because it takes longer before you
go broke... basically, they rig it if you're playing with real cash... it should
be the exact same thing as when I'm playing with fake credits.

They were rigging the single-zero roulette. If everything was legit and the zero popped up as often as any other number, a +1/-1 system should theoretically keep you in the game. If luck's on your side, maybe you scrape together $20. It's definitely better to drag the process out longer than to just lose your shirt instantly.

Noah Thompson said:That’s exactly what I was thinking, but playing with $1 chips feels like a total drag,

it takes forever to hit my $20 goal....

What do you guys think? Would it be smarter to just jump in with $10

or even $20 chips? I'd reach my target way faster, unless I just

get wrecked right out of the gate.. 😍

Doubling down after a loss is a death trap—it's how you end up with massive bets and an empty bankroll in no time. If you're starting with $10, you'll blow through it even faster. Honestly, you're better off using a system where you just bump your bet by one unit after a loss, or drop it by one when you win. That actually gives you a shot at seeing some profit. You gotta have patience, otherwise, this whole thing is just a fast track to disaster.

Noah Thompson said:regarding online gambling—specifically playing
roulette. Right now, I’m just messing around with virtual credits, but I'm assuming
it's basically the same deal as playing for real cash, except it's just for kicks? I mean, the numbers drawn, the sequence of events and all that.

and what do you guys think about https://www.draftkings.com

thanks!

I can't speak for everyone, but my experience with roulette over at DraftKings was pretty sketchy. For a while, they had this "no zero" roulette option. On paper, that means you aren't bleeding out in the long run. It works fine when you're just playing with fake chips. But the second you put actual skin in the game, the losses start piling up fast. Especially if you bump up your bets. Honestly, felt like they were rigging the math. They don't even offer that no-zero version anymore.
I haven't touched standard roulette, but there's really no need for them to cheat there—that single zero is their golden ticket to staying profitable.

Michael Campbell3 said:http://www.nytimes.com/energy-saving-bulbs-health-risks/941606/

I’m trying to figure out how much truth there is to this, because honestly, it’s getting a little creepy. I swapped out every single incandescent bulb in my house for these energy-saver ones. Now I'm sitting here wondering if I should just go back to the old stuff.

Honestly, might be worth switching back to the old school way. You even realize that those used CFL bulbs are basically classified as hazardous waste?

granitedrifter2 said:Look, everything’s toxic. Even the tap water is full of crap you don't want in your system. People act like you can't even have stuff near your head, but then what about cell phones? Or those microwaves? It's all just one big mess...

That's a massive stretch. Not everything is out to get you. I don't even touch my microwave, and I try to keep my screen time down as much as possible.
But honestly? Those energy-efficient LED bulbs? They're garbage. I'm convinced they're bad for you, no question about it. I've stuck strictly to the old-school incandescent ones in my house, and if the big retailers actually pull them off the shelves, I'm planning on stocking up big time.

Daniel Bailey39 said:Yeah, there's a few reasons why:
-it's literally the family doctor's job to fax the specialist or just read the results out loud.
-there are all these medical terms that are impossible to pronounce without sounding like an idiot, and if I mess one up, the doctor—who, let's be real, doesn't want to deal with this any more than I do—ends up with the wrong info.

Fine then, go pick a fight with your GP and see how long that takes. You're just gonna sit there waiting for them to actually fax it or read it, even after they told you they wouldn't?

Daniel Bailey39 said:Alright, let me cut through the bullshit and get to the point.🙄
Someone’s on chemo, right? So before their next round, they gotta get bloodwork done—which is done—and then show those results to the doctor (not some random GP, I'm talking about the actual specialist).
Well, our doctor basically told me that's not her job. She said she isn't here to fix everyone else's problems and that I have to call the specialist myself to relay the results😲 😲 or just drive the damn papers over to the hospital myself.☕
What's next? Are prescriptions gonna become a "personal responsibility" too? And seriously, why the hell won't the doctor just take the results online? All this hype about digital healthcare and integrated systems in America, and we're still stuck doing manual labor because nobody wants to coordinate.😠 😠

God, man, why are you stressing out and getting your blood pressure up over this? It's honestly not worth it. Is it really that much of a chore to just read the results yourself?