Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Sports bettors are no more rational than stock investors and are prone to many of the same fallacies   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1819 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2003 at 6:10 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

28 Comments     (+0 »)
2003-01-03 05:07:57 PM  
Note to self, "Make bets with suckers." Got it.
2003-01-03 06:12:55 PM  
What the Fark is a bettor???
2003-01-03 06:13:33 PM  
is that really the spelling for "one who bets"?
2003-01-03 06:14:55 PM  
01-03-03 06:12:55 PM Milwaukee
What the Fark is a bettor???

Someone who bets ... like a Doctor is someone who Docs and a teachor is someone who teaches.

/me ducks =:-P
2003-01-03 06:15:38 PM  
it's like the word cooky, you've never heard of it, but it's the same as cookie.

bet·tor also bet·ter ( P ) Pronunciation Key (btr)
One that bets or places a bet.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
2003-01-03 06:16:36 PM  
You mean people who take sports way too seriously and wager wads of money on it are not intellectually superior to stockbrokers.
My faith in reality is in shambles.

NOTE, although they are prone to the same fallacies, they are also prone to less fellatio.
2003-01-03 06:18:58 PM  
i'd put $10 on the one with the limp
2003-01-03 06:21:17 PM  
Shouldn't this headline be the other way round?

"investors are no more sane than sports bettors, and share many of the same gamble-crazed irrational exuberance" .. ?
2003-01-03 06:24:07 PM  
Sports bettors are no more rational than stock investors

Anyone else think it's odd that the professionals who invest money for a living are assumed to be the halfwits, and the headline needs to explicitly state that drunken idjits wagering on guys throwing balls around are no better?

Not me. My opinion of stocks and investing has been low for a long while. I have no desire to get involved in something when my net worth can be wiped out by one uninformed maroon panicking.
2003-01-03 06:28:39 PM  
"Fark you all... Suckors.".

--Farkor Lindseyp.
2003-01-03 06:29:16 PM  
$10 says the Smails kid eats it
2003-01-03 06:33:59 PM  
I'll bet $200 this thread doesn't get over 50 posts.
2003-01-03 06:35:40 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size

Oh, and in these parts, you start a topic with "sports" you get nowhere.
2003-01-03 06:39:19 PM  
bondith blackjack players and teams who search for statistical anomalies at casinos are pros. Everyone else is there because they enjoy being suxOred ...

or because they're stupid, and think they have a chance of winning.

However the lottery is a different game.

Losing $10 is no biggie, winning 100mil is big. so big people are prepared to pay twice the odds. Even me.
2003-01-03 06:44:27 PM  
Hey, I'm a semi-serious sports bettor and I've outperformed the stock market this year (OK, not too hard, but I've made a 10% profit = £2000).

Anyway, it's a well known fact that chimps throwing darts at the stock pages will, over time, perform roughly the same as your average fund manager ..
2003-01-03 06:47:44 PM  
it used to be a well known fact that 1,000,000 monkeys typing on 1,000,000 typewriters would over time reproduce the works of Shakespere. thanks to the internet we now know this is not true.
2003-01-03 07:06:34 PM  
Just follow TMQ's betting rules from ESPN and you'll come out ahead every season. This season was great for me - I finished up over $200, after risking $20-40 per week on NFL games. I bet $10 on most games, $20 if there are only a few bettable games in a week.

The rules:
1. Never bet on your own team.
2. Always bet the same amount on every game you're wagering.
3. Never bet against Brett Favre at home.
4. Never bet on a game involving San Diego.

This season... my team was the Cardinals (urgh) who went 5-11, so I saved myself around $60 in losses.

On the second one, I can report success because of games like when New Orleans swept Tampa and when Tampa swept Atlanta, and Atlanta swept New Orleans. I kept the $10 bets consistent and finished ahead $20, having lost only two of those. Had I tried to bet more toward season's end or based on other games that week, I could well have lost badly, since the ones I whiffed were the last two.

On the third one, the Packers were 8-0 at home this year. I can't remember whether I bet $10 or $20 on each Pack game, and I know I didn't bet them all, so I'm guessing about a $70-90 gain there.

On the fourth one - I didn't bet on San Diego, but my roommate lost $600 when he was the last one knocked out of a suicide pool when the Jets beat the Chargers in Cali back in the late season. Ouch.

Just remember: always get 12 hours of sleep a night, never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city, and never piss into the wind. The rest is cream cheese.
2003-01-03 07:20:19 PM  
Hmmm I wonder what they think about people who go to, where players combine sportsbetting with stock trading.
2003-01-03 07:46:10 PM  
Losing $10 is no biggie, winning 100mil is big. so big people are prepared to pay twice the odds. Even me.

The odd thing is that economic theory says it should work the other way around. Winning $100M is not twice as good as winning $50M, which is not twice as good as winning $25M. So evein if the odds were fair (i.e., you had a 1-in-100M chance of winning $100M with a $1 ticket), you shouldn't do it. I think people get excited about thinking they might win, and so they can justify spending $1 or $10 or whatever on the entertainment. Also, people tend to justify individual purchases, but don't realize how it adds up. Spending $5 on lottery tickets with the chance to get rich doesn't sound like much. But if you do that twice a week, you're spending $500/year on lottery tickets.
2003-01-03 07:53:00 PM  
Just follow TMQ's betting rules from ESPN and you'll come out ahead every season.

Oh, this is probably the greatest fallacy in sports gambling: seeing somebody who is successful over a small sample, and assuming that it'll work forever. There are a lot of people touting "systems" and "rules" and "rankings"; some of them are going to be right by random chance. TMQ falls into that category. He knows his football and writes an entertaining column, but they guy is as dumb as most people when it comes to using statistics (I could go on about this point for an hour, but I'll spare everyone).

And your friend was taking a big risk with that $600 in that suicide pool. Once you're down to 2 or 3 or 4 people, you really ought to split the pot (or split most of it; for instance, split $500 and let $100 keep riding). Everybody who already lost will complain and call you a wimp, but you'll have a few hundred dollars that they don't. (I'm using "you" generically, I don't mean you or your friend specifically, Bahr).

I do agree with TMQ's rule #1, though. It's too hard to be objective when your own team is involved. I don't bet for or against any of my favorite teams.
2003-01-03 08:27:16 PM  
stock brokers are no better than glorified palm readers.
2003-01-03 09:05:19 PM  
The best thing is to bet against your team.

You either buy a victory or get money to buy yourself some beers...

Its the best!

Gogi "Buffalo" Bill
2003-01-03 09:36:35 PM  
The only kind of sports betting I can get into is betting piffling amounts (one or two bucks) on random events that happen when you're actually at a game, like:

'Betcha a dollar Bonds strikes out.'
'Betcha Malone misses one of these two free throws.'
'Betcha five bucks we don't see a beer guy for at least half an hour.'(a sure thing)

I was at a Cubs game one time and some guys in front of me made bets on each and every throw back from the catcher to the pitcher -- he'll have to reach up for this one, he'll take this one in front of the mound, etc. It was hilarious.

By the way, the highest-percentage bet of this type of bet you can make is on the first pitch after a batter reaches a full count. He'll foul it off 75% percent of the time.

/incredibly bored & beerless
2003-01-03 10:37:52 PM  
Well, I made a 20% profit on just betting the horses this year, so the guy's an idiot.

You have to know the horses, though. You can't just go in cold and think you're going to guess which one will win. He's right about the last race on a given race day - it's great to bet against the longshots in the last race because a LOT of people try to make up a losing day on the last race.

Having $100 on a 4/1 horse who's got a 2 length lead coming down the stretch is better than sex.

And that last sentence shows you why they call it bettor - it's better to use bettor because bettor is better.
2003-01-03 11:15:11 PM  
Best bar bet you can make" First time a batter reaches a 3-2 count, bet your buddy/sucka that the next pitch will be fouled off; occurs nearly 64% of the time. hah.
2003-01-03 11:20:02 PM  
Maveno: "I'll bet $200 this thread doesn't get over 50 posts."

All those who wanna take him up on it, post now.
2003-01-03 11:27:50 PM  
It's OK to eat your bettin' money but never bet your eatin' money.
2003-01-04 05:57:44 PM  
well no shiat! whether you are sports bettors or stock traders, they're all compulsive gamblers! duh!
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.