Is anyone on here a pro gambler?

None on here i'm afraid

Yeah I wander about listening to Pink Floyd quite often. Oh wait, that means I'm a Prog ambler.

try football forum

all depends on the criteria.

Betfair may class you as a pro only after you have won consistently for 5 or so years .

someone could live solely off gambling for as year or two before running out of luck ,or finding their edge has been  taken away etc ..or worst still losing their bank 2 or 3 times in quick succession ...a wipeout.

Cannot be done

of course there are. The ones who say it cant be done are the ones who can't do it

Gamblers   dont   last   long ....  why  cause  thy   gamble  ....... now   traders   or  lays    on  here   there   are   plenty  ... without   them   thats   traders   and   layers    you  would  not  have   a  market  ....... gamblers    dont   make  the   market .

how old are you?

Brendam.......zip   80  plus   vat  .... you  do  the  maths  .

Hi, I'm a pro gambler. I can't tell you how to win though, sorry.

i used to have a mate who was a pro gambler

in 2008 he had 4 bets

80+vat that some good going, congrats Do you still play for the fun of it or do it for the dough?

I know of one definite on here. Lays selected rags, with a massive bank and makes it pay full time!

The words 'professional' and 'gambler' are in some ways mutually exclusive.

If you have a method that wins consistently, it is no gamble to employ this method, at least not in the most commonly held senses of the word 'gamble.'

There has to be a better short phrase to describe somebody who makes their living by betting profitably.

How much bank would you need to go professional?

Deadly Earnest Joined: 16 Mar 04
Replies: 1537 21 Jul 10 23:40 
The words 'professional' and 'gambler' are in some ways mutually exclusive.

If you have a method that wins consistently, it is no gamble to employ this method, at least not in the most commonly held senses of the word 'gamble.'

There has to be a better short phrase to describe somebody who makes their living by betting profitably.

The things is that some of these 'methods that win consistently' will be due to luck. In the same way that lottery winners are lucky, there will be people on here who win consistently just by luck. If you do a statistical test to show that the likelihood that someone has an edge rather than winning due to luck alone is 99.999% that doesn't prove anything taken in isolation.

I went from 52 consecutive winning weeks in 2009 to only 19 out of 26 in the first half of 2010. That's a huge difference in consistency.

Even using arguments starting with 'in the long term' still don't prove anything. You don't have an infinite amount of time, and an edge cannnot possibly be quantified exactly on a single straight bet taken in isolation on sports events (there are exceptions that I won't go into here). Success rests on estimating odds/value as closely as possible, taking calculated risks. The best you can hope to work with will always be an estimate though.

Time will tell I suppose.

I am a male prostitute, a rent boy if you will, and I gamble regularly.

Compound Magic,

Try doing a simulation of 10,000 coin tosses where the payout is even, but the chance of heads is 50.1% and tails is 49.9% (obviously you bet heads every time).
You might see that a chart is generated that looks like it contains a steady upward trend (or even possibly a steady downward trend), or it's moving sideways, or up and down randomly so that it looks that there is no edge.

My point is that if I did a coin toss simulation like this and told you there is more chance of heads than tails, but didn't tell you what the edge was, after 10,000 tosses, it would be impossible to tell whether the chance was 50.05%, 50.1% or 50.15%. The best you could do would be to create a probability distribution. The same applies to any sequence of bets.

Eventually the chance of winning being due to luck alone will indeed be minuscule, but it never goes away entirely (as in the chance being infinitely small). You may be able to say something like 'the chance of these profits being due to luck alone is 1 in 100,000', but if you looked at a 100,000 accounts and this one had these characteristics, there would be nothing remarkable about that.

Also your calculations may be based on wrong assumptions, just like the finance professionals who said that a crash like this would occur once every billions of years.

I have an axiomatic system, and what that does is give you a foundation to support your theory, which then becomes more solid when what you predict (turning a profit) actually happens. I think you still have to live with the fact that you can't prove anything, only show that something is so extremely likely that there is no justification for doubt.

I won't be having a penny on it but I'd love to here your explanation why this is a bet.