'Does it pay to buy picks?' now w/ RJ Bell guest post

[Beyond the Bets]

[Beyond the Bets]

BTB Note: Last week, we wrote an article on Deadspin focusing on the tout industry and also provided a follow-up post here on the site. In that post, Pregame.com handicappers were specifically referenced. RJ Bell, CEO and founder of Pregame, asked to write a guest blog to touch on some of the topics raised in the posts. His response—untouched and in full—can be found below.

* * *

How can I provide value for sports bettors?

That is a question I've been asking myself for a long time. Creating value for our visitors is quite simply why I built Pregame.com—not because I am a selfless altruist (I read too much Ayn Rand in high school for that). No, mostly because providing genuine value is the best way to grow a business (plus, I really hate bookies).

BTB's blog post about won/loss records is a valid part of the conversation, but there are many other key factors that need to be considered.

First, let's talk about the records: Pregame.com makes every pick from every Pro available one hour after the game starts. We also provide a graded archive of the last 100 picks made by each Pro. What we don't do is calculate and present lifetime records, and the reason for that is simple: For a vast majority of pick buyers, 60 percent is the bare minimum win percentage that is considered acceptable.

BTB is savvy enough to say: "Greg Shaker hit an impressive 55.4 percent of his plays over a 1,521-game sample," while the average pick buyer would laugh at 55.4 percent while continuing his search for a win percentage that would make Stu Feiner smile. Shining a spotlight on the lifetime records would place hard-working handicappers in a no-win situation (no matter how well they did, the results would pale compared to the false claims still rampant in our industry).

Yet, due to the full transparency Pregame.com provides for every pick, anyone can track any and all records. I've seen many such tracking efforts—and I can say without a doubt the numbers referenced in the BTB blog are on the low-end win percentage-wise. Why would this be? It could be a coincidence of the time period tracked. It could be the tracker has a business-related agenda (it only takes switching a few wins to losses to skew results). My skepticism aside, let's take a closer look at these specific numbers.

Ten of 33 handicappers turned a profit. Your first instinct may be to be disappointed in those results. But let’s look at the math: the fact is, an estimated 3 to 5 percent of sports bettors profit over the long term (I’ve asked over a dozen bookmakers for a percentage estimate, and their answer is inevitably in that range). So, assuming the more optimistic number (5%), the odds of at least 10 handicappers out of 33 profiting is over 320,000 to 1 against (.00031% chance). And if the true number is 3 percent, the odds against the number of handicappers who profited is over 34.5 million to 1. (Both figures calculated using cumulative binomial probabilities).

Can I hear a "wow?" The most likely objection at this point is: “Professionals are not supposed to be average.” Exactly right. The 33 Pros in the sample time period performed in upwards of the 99.999997th percentile. Massively better than average.

The next possible objection is: “The sample period record is not a lifetime record.” Once again, exactly right ... meaning that limited conclusions should be derived from any record other than a lifetime record—no matter if the conclusion is “these guys suck” or if the conclusion is “these results are 1 in 34.5 million good.” Let’s look at Vegas Runner for example: 51.5 percent during the sample period (i.e., one of the non-profitable). Now check out VR’s record for the 2009-10 sports betting season (every pick documented by The Sports Monitor): NFL: 57.7%; college football 54.5%; NBA 56.8%; college basketball 56.7%; MLB 57.6% ... totaling 1,265 games at 56.996 percent! In the history of sports betting you can count on one hand the number of public handicappers delivering a documented year like that.

The conclusion is simple and beyond debate: The time period of the picks considered very much matters.

“Well, then,” the skeptic might say, “Pregame.com seems to have some real winners. Stick with them and get rid of the rest."

Good idea. But first, sufficient sample size would require many thousands of picks. And even then, if the handicapper is a winner, you must be certain that he's making the same effort in the same way he did years ago (when the sample started)—or, for "losers," what if he changed parts of his style midway through and hit 54 percent over the second half of the sample, but only 52 percent for the entire sample?

Samples can only be compared if the factors are the same throughout, which is never the case for a human handicapper over multiple years. But even more complicating is the capper who profits big in some sports and not others. Or some conferences but not others. Or some bet types (like totals) and not others. Or big picks but not smaller picks. Or when confident and energized by a hot streak, but not when cold. Math guys crave the eradication of the human element, and the logic guys crave order—while the average pick follower astutely understands that handicappers are human—meaning that emotion and specialization matters.

Combining all of the pick results for all handicappers into a net dollar figure is deceiving on many levels. Most obviously, more than a few of the picks are opposite sides of the same game (from different handicappers), creating an unavoidable loss of juice that would never happen to a bettor in the real world. Even more importantly, pick buyers do not follow blindly, but rather take into account a Pro's recent and historical performance in many categories. Here are a few examples of many outstanding segmented results:

Specific sport

• Stephen Nover has publicly delivered 18 of 19 winning NFL seasons.

Specific bet types

• Greg Shaker, the most profitable Pro during the sample period, has won an even more amazing 684 of 1151 over/under picks (59.4%).

Alternative sports

• Mike Hook, the third most profitable Pro during the sample period, has won over 285 units for followers since 2010 when adding alternative sports such as golf and UFC to his overall record accounting.

Biggest picks

• Marco D’Angelo has won 24 of 31 college football Games of the Year.

Geographic specialization

• D'Angelo has won 97 of 155 (62.6%) picks on games in which a Pittsburgh team played since 2009.

Hot streaks

• D’Angelo won an amazing 25 straight picks during the 2010 MLB season (never laying more than -120).

That last one should preempt the "random outlier" skepticism: the odds against Marco's historic baseball streak was 41.6 million to 1 against. That's a long way from random. When his streak hit 20 in a row the entire sports betting Internet waited breathlessly for his pick each day, because the average bettor understands that "being in the zone" is real, even if science can't fully explain it.

Ask an average sports bettor if he wants the NFL picks from a guy who has won 18 of 19 NFL seasons and his answer would likely be the same as mine. Reliance on data can be deadly when you ask for answers it cannot provide. All handicappers are human, and any approach to critique handicappers without accounting for their good and bad, highs and lows, and evolution over time will fall short.

The best handicappers make the effort to self-correct (i.e., make changes based on the areas they perform best), but the confidence it takes to bet often gets in the way of that ability. Pregame.com strives not only for pick transparency, but also handicapper transparency. By strongly encouraging our Pros to provide as much free content as possible plus an unmatched amount of engagement with the community, we empower site visitors with the additional information needed to determine which Pros offer value in which situations.

* * * 

BTB would like to thank RJ Bell for his time. You can find him on Twitter at @RJinVegas. 

[mount187]

The numbers RJ puts out there may seem impressive, but he's just putting W/L records up. If you'll notice, he never once references his cappers' records ATS. While it may look like his guys are winning at their 54-56% win percentages, that doesn't factor in any games they took and lost on the m/l. Maybe his guys never pick games on the m/l, and if so, it gives more legitimacy to his numbers, but if not, it just seems like more spin from the tout industry. It also doesn't factor in the overhead created by having to pay for picks. As we've noted in other threads, it doesn't take much overhead to move your baseline break even percentage from 52.5% to the 54-56% range he's touting.

[SkyBlues42]

Agreed. I've said it before.. it's really not difficult to hit 60% of your plays if you're betting huge ML favorites. I bet you could go through NFL and college football and finish with an 85% win percentage.

To me, his response seemed a little "promotional." Look at Marco, hitting all of these awesome percentages.

The one thing I did agree with, though, was the fact that totaling up all of the handicappers results would obviously be skewed. Especially since some will have opposite sides in specific games. The juice will get them almost every time in those situations.

[jimmysingh9]

Nothing new to me honestly. Sounds like a tout, touting up his own place. Never honest, always spins the numbers to look good.


also agree with SkyBlues, felt a little promotional.

[Beyond the Bets]

Just to get this out of the way now, because some folks will criticize me: "BTB, if you are against pick selling, then why would you give up some of your web space to the founder of a pick selling site?"

Answer: "You can't take shots at people or their companies and not give them a chance to respond." RJ wanted to write a guest post explaining his view of things, and I was more than happy to provide him with the opportunity.

Also, I think it's a discussion worth having, regardless of what side you fall on.

[JayPrimetown]

(05-14-2012 10:30 AM)Beyond the Bets Wrote:  Just to get this out of the way now, because some folks will criticize me: "BTB, if you are against pick selling, then why would you give up some of your web space to the founder of a pick selling site?"

Answer: "You can't take shots at people or their companies and not give them a chance to respond." RJ wanted to write a guest post explaining his view of things, and I was more than happy to provide him with the opportunity.

Also, I think it's a discussion worth having, regardless of what side you fall on.

No issue with you hosting his blog post. He's allowed to defend his business... no issue with that.

In reading his article, there is nothing wrong with the #s he provided. They seem believable enough. However, Mount brings up a solid point... the article does not reflect on the juice over the course of the picks. Are all picks at -110? Are they + money wagers... are they higher juiced wagers? Would love to know that before evaluating.

I can tell you of the four sports I track my picks on, I'm hitting 48% Tennis, 50% on MLS, 50% on UFC, and 52% on baseball.

The only sport I'm losing money that I've tracked is tennis.

My point is that #s can be skewed... how can you be profiting at 50% on UFC? Well, at the last UFC event alone I hit a +170 and +240 play. Looks a lot better when showing those %'s as opposed to W/L %s.

One "tout" I have seen a bit who skews #s is Randizzle... he does a lot of juiced plays. -135 expanded teasers or instead of playing -2.5 in hoops, he'll play the ML.

Might be hitting over 50% of plays, but losing over time. While I may be at 50%, but ahead money wise because I'm taking more + money plays.

[Wiseguy]

I can't help but feel like this is so similar to my old job. I was a retail stock broker for 10 years and would have the same conversation with friends. Why pay a broker high commissions when I can go online and pay $10 a trade? This board is full of do-it your-selfer's, and honestly that is one of the reason's I come here.

[jimmysingh9]

If all these guys numbers are out there, why cant we just see what a 100 dollar bettor playing all these picks at the odds available would profit you after paying the costs of buying the picks?


maybe I am missing out on something or it's already been done, but isnt that the simple solution. Nothing is bad if it actually makes you a profit after all expenses, but it seems like all this is more spin. Simple Math. I would do it but I am not in market to buy picks or care about buying picks.

but if its an important topic and all the plays for this year are out already, why not track them and you'll get your info.


interviews and talking is just bullshit. numbers and dollars talk.

[SkyBlues42]

(05-14-2012 10:54 AM)jimmysingh9 Wrote:  numbers and dollars talk.

Agreed, and I see a lot of RED over at Pregame.

[Beyond the Bets]

I might write a post in the next few days about some of the issues or questions raised in RJ's entry, but this is the part that I probably object with the most:

RJ Bell Wrote:The fact is, an estimated 3 to 5 percent of sports bettors profit over the long term. So, assuming the more optimistic number (5%), the odds of at least 10 handicappers out of 33 profiting is over 320,000 to 1 against (.00031% chance).

Can I hear a “wow?” The most likely objection at this point is: “Professionals are not supposed to be average.” Exactly right. The 33 Pros in the sample time period performed in upwards of the 99.999997th percentile. Massively better than average.

Let's assume that the above numbers are true, that 5 percent of all sports bettors profit long term. OK, great. But why are we lumping in Regular Joes with alleged professionals?

Here's an analogy: Let's say there are 2 million people worldwide ages 17 to 35 who play baseball. Of those 2 million, 1 percent of them are capable of hitting Major League pitching. So, essentially, there are 20,000 people capable of hitting Major League pitching.

But how many people want to try to hit MLB pitching? How many have aspirations to become a MLB player? How many are willing to put in the necessary effort to become a professional?

Surely, plenty of folks who could hit big-league pitching do not have any interest. An overwhelming majority of those who can't are probably recreational players. So, if we're trying to talk up a player like Ronny Cedeno, do we compare him to big-leaguers (in which case we'd argue that he's among the worst) or do we compare him to the world sample (in which case he's incredible.)

I'd argue that it's better to compare him to other professionals. Saying that he's better than a beer league player who works a 9-to-5 job and has no interest in playing professionally doesn't tell me how good he is. Telling me how he stacks up against other elite players, or other players trying to make a living at this particular craft, is a much better indicator.

Similarly, comparing Pregame Pros to a world sample — a sample that includes an overwhelming majority of recreational bettors who couldn't bet professionally even if they had the monetary means to do so — seems a bit "off."

Ninety-five percent of sports bettors lose? OK, sure. I can agree with that.

But surely the percentage of people who are actively trying to win (i.e., wiseguys, syndicates, pro bettors, etc.) are doing so at a much higher success rate than beer guzzlers eating pizza and backing their favorite team "just because."

[JSpauny]

I was just going to make a long winded post about what you just brought up BTB but you beat me to it.

I respect RJ, think he's a very intelligent guy from what I've read/seen over at pregame. But answering the question "why are your handicappers not hitting at higher rates" with "well, no one hits at higher rates. look the numbers prove it" is bullshit, and frankly a total cop out. That's just a bullshit excuse plain and simple.

BTB said it best so I won't rehash his entire argument, but shouldn't we be holding these "professionals" to higher standards? Hell, shouldn't these "professional" be holding themselves to higher standards? (The answer to that is of course no because they seem to make enough money selling picks to not care about how the actual picks perform. At least that's the perception and perception is more or less reality in most cases).

[RyanParrill]

I need a shower after reading that...

[SkyBlues42]

Maybe we start a 1 month protest and try to get all people buying picks to stop for a month (would be impossible. A sucker is born every minute). Let those cappers struggle financially and see how much effort they put into the picks after that.

[JSpauny]

(05-14-2012 11:21 AM)SkyBlues42 Wrote:  Maybe we start a 1 month protest and try to get all people buying picks to stop for a month (would be impossible. A sucker is born every minute). Let those cappers struggle financially and see how much effort they put into the picks after that.

This is probably the only course of action, but like you said, is it even possible?

[Beyond the Bets]

(05-14-2012 10:54 AM)jimmysingh9 Wrote:  If all these guys numbers are out there, why cant we just see what a 100 dollar bettor playing all these picks at the odds available would profit you after paying the costs of buying the picks?

numbers and dollars talk.

BINGO!

There is no better marketing plan for a pick selling company than showing potential clients real cash instead of win percentages. Because honestly, even win rates don't tell the whole story (particularly in money line sports like MLB or NHL.)

RJ Bell Wrote:BTB is savvy enough to say: "Greg Shaker hit an impressive 55.4 percent of his plays over a 1,521-game sample," while the average pick buyer would laugh at 55.4 percent while continuing his search for a win percentage that would make Stu Feiner smile. Shining a spotlight on the lifetime records would place hard-working handicappers in a no-win situation

So, if people can't understand win percentages, then give them something they can understand: Cash. You'll never educate the masses and make them understand that a handicapper hitting 54 or 55 percent is likely crushing it. But you can make them understand the end result, which is essentially: "Would tailing X handicapper over Y period of time lead to a profit or a loss?"

For example, "By tailing Greg Shaker's plays since 2008, a $100 bettor would be up $4,045." Or ...

"By tailing Denver Money's plays since 2007, a $100 bettor would be down $3,500."

The system is imperfect (we're not factoring in the cost of the plays), but it's far better than the current way it's being done, it would be far more transparent, and would give people an easy way to see who is great and who stinks.

The ability to slice and dice the data would be beneficial on the selling side. So, if Denver Money is down $3,500 since 2007, perhaps that doesn't tell the whole story.

Maybe he is ahead $10,700 since October 2009. Or, perhaps he's up $1,500 betting NBA totals this season. Or whatever.

Pregame (and all pick selling sites) should have full transparency with results and make them publicly available for anyone who cares to view them. With the amount of technology at our disposal, there's no reason to have the archaic tracking methods currently being employed.

"Denver Money is 55-45 in his last 100 plays" doesn't tell the whole story. Telling me that a $100 bettor would have profited $1,300 during those same 100 plays is far more effective.

[ChiefZilla]

Considering every friend I have who bets on sports is the type that starts an NFL season with a $200 or $500 budget and says to themselves, "I'm probably going to lose this money, but at least it will keep me entertained for the whole season," I'd agree with everything BTB said.

Most sports bettors I know don't really care if they win or lose. They view it as entertainment. They're not actively trying to get better. They'll bet on their favorite college or pro football teams, place a few other bets, and try to have fun along the way.

Much like a beer league softball player.

Comparing those guys with "pros" who are making money off individuals is just skewing numbers strictly for the sake of making propaganda sound pretty.

[Beyond the Bets]

To RJ's credit, as of 9:40 a.m. PT on May 14th, every handicapper at his site is real. I know, I know. The absurdity of that sentence is laugh-out-loud funny (like, "Congrats! You guys employ real people!")

But, that's one less fake handicapper than Covers currently has. Covers has trimmed down its roster of fakes from two to one with the removal of Guillermo Sanchez Perez. David Chan is still selling picks at Covers and is still 100 percent fake.

If RJ were to use the system suggested by Jimmy Singh, it would be an incredible step in the right direction for the pick selling industry and I would give major props. It would be risky, but the best handicappers (i.e., the winners) would be rewarded.

[mount187]

I know of a site that tracks their MLB plays in terms of money won/lost in terms of $100 units. The information is free, and the tracking is 100% transparent. I hear the site's operators are super attractive too.

[RJ_Bell]

I asked to reply to BTB's blog because I felt like this community was likely to have an intelligent conversation about this nuanced subject - and I'm happy to see my optimism was warranted.

A few clarifications based on replies so far . . .

* Over 99% of all picks from Pregame.com Pros in football and basketball are at -110 . . . MLB is all over the map ML-wise (that's why I will rarely talk about W/L records in MLB, but it should be noted that during Marco's baseball streak he never laid more than -120, and over half the picks were dogs).

* Agreed that the "overhead" of pick costs is certainly a factor that should be considered by pick buyers. This subject of pick cost could support its own post (it's something I think about often) . . . fact is: by any objective measure Pregame.com is the lowest priced of the major pick sites (both on our most premium offerings, and by offing Dollar a Day premium packages for $29 per month). In addition, plans are in the works to increase significantly the offerings that will make cost/benefit sense to the smaller, $50 player.

* the comment about "never being honest" is simply not true - every word is honest and accurate . . . the real question of this discussion is the true meaning of the facts.

* Agree 100% that Do It Yourself Handicapping is 100% valid . . . but the fact is a vast majority of bettors don't have the time and/or expertise to do DIY profitably . . . leaving them the choice between betting blindly or betting the same picks as experts (with the added expense of pick costs).

* BTB makes an interesting point that the standard should be higher for professionals than the average bettor. Agree 100%. The question is: what's the standard? My answer to that question has been to gather guys in the 99.999997th percentile of average - while providing enough free content and transparency for followers to decide in what situations these experts offer value. Profit is no doubt the ultimate measure. But presenting overall results by win % or a net profit doesn't change the two key questions: 1) what time period/sample size is valid for meaningful results?; 2) what type of pick segmentation (e.g., by sport, by pick size) is valid for meaningful results . . . because the handicapper who wins at all picks across all sports is the rarest of all - if that's the standard, then you will be ignoring many niche winners whose segmented picks cash at as high (if not higher) rates.