Podcast – Sports betting coming

Anthony made a point in the last couple minutes that was really validating for me to hear. He was discussing the upcoming book from Blair Rodman, saying how difficult it is to convey the nuance involved with betting sports. This made me think of a favorite quote, and some core beliefs about gambling in general.

I’ll start by saying that I have had enough success at the games I play (like poker) that I feel like it has been a good enough use of my time to pursue the level of expertise that I did. I have never felt like I sports betting is something that I would be very good at, and so I have never really tried to handicap sports. So I can’t say for sure if I would be any good or not. But Anthony’s characterization of the game has reinforced my self-perceptions.

Many people who visit this website ask themselves the critical questions necessary about their aptitudes for gambling, but most tourists do not. So many times I have seen others playing the same game I have – the person sitting next to me at a poker table, for instance – and wondered to myself (objectively) “How did you decide that you are suited to this activity? Who told you that you would be good at this? No one who understands this game would say that.”

Betting sports is something that is easy to do, but not easy to do well. I think of these ideas as 1) the “barrier to competence” and 2) the “illusion of proficiency”

1) The barrier to competence is fairly low – players think “I can do this”

Even though craps is a very simple game, most who read this understand that the layout is often intimidating to the novice. Casinos offer craps lessons for just this reason. Some people don’t play craps because they can’t figure out where to put their chips and cannot tell what is happening. It is as simple as that. There are also people who understand Blackjack basic strategy fairly well, but who think counting cards is something for a savant like the character in Rain Man. That is to say that they are competent at one level of the game, but not another.

When it comes to sports betting, I’m kind of like the people I just described. If I wanted to place a bet, I can walk up to the window, and without any awkwardness, present the correct amount of money in order to win the amount that I want to (e.g., lay $55 to win $50 on the Cowboys game, because they are America’s Team, after all). On another level I “get” what Anthony and Frank said about efficient markets in sports betting, and pounding the pavement to get good bets down.

But actual handicapping? Evaluating game conditions and picking winners? That kind of stuff is for Rain Men and Wizards (like Michael Shackelford) and Sun-Touchers (like Fezzik). Maybe I’d be good at it, but I doubt it – although I suppose I could find something in Blair Rodman’s book that makes me change my mind.

2) The short-term variance in sports betting offers players an illusion of proficiency – players think “I am an expert”. It should be self evident that people can and do confuse short term results for evidence of expertise – at poker, handicapping, etc. It would be very easy for an unskilled player to fall into this trap over a single football season. For what it’s worth, my first 100 hours of Omaha/8 had me thinking I was pretty good, but eventually my self-perception returned to a state of soundness after my results fell back to earth.

Which brings me to the quote that I mentioned earlier, from Bertrand Russell – “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt”.