A good sports betting column should be backed by a profitable gambler with a proven track record. It should offer picks generated by a sophisticated and conceptually sound model. Most importantly, it should treat the subject with the seriousness it warrants.

This is not that column.

Instead, this will be an off-beat look at the sports betting industry-- why Vegas keeps winning, why gambling advice is almost certainly not worth the money, and the structural reasons why even if a bettor were profitable, anything they wrote would be unlikely to make their readers net profitable, too.

While we're at it, we'll discuss ways to minimize Vegas' edge and make recreational betting more fun, explain how to gain an advantage in your office pick pools, preview games through an offbeat lens (with picks guaranteed to be no worse than chance), and tackle various other Odds and Ends along the way.

Tracking the Unders

In 2022 and 2023, mass-betting the unders was incredibly profitable over the first 6 weeks and essentially just broke even after that. I hypothesized this year that maybe all we needed to do to make a killing was to start our "mass-bet the unders" strategy earlier in the season.

Just as we were getting back to .500 on the season, the rug was pulled out from under us. Unders went 4-12 last week, bringing our win percentage below 90% and our losses to $114.55 (assuming you bet $10 on each game at -110 odds). Usually unders do better than this; is it possible that Vegas has finally noticed our endeavor here and started shading the lines higher to pull the rug out from under us?

(No, it is not.)

Some Thoughts on Betting Systems

If you lurk around the seedier corners of the gambling world, you'll undoubtedly come across people shilling a "fool-proof system" for beating the house. The most famous such system is probably the Martingale.

The Martingale is simple: find a game with a roughly 50/50 chance of success, place a bet, and then double that bet every time you lose. For instance, bet a dollar that a coin flip will come up heads. If it comes up heads, bank that dollar and start over. If it comes up tails, increase your bet to $2 and repeat. If it comes up tails again, bet $4 and repeat.

The net result of a Martingale system is that 50% of the time, you'll get heads on your first flip and win a dollar. And 25% of the time, you'll get tails on your first flip (-$1) and heads on your second flip (+$2) and win a dollar. And 12.5% of the time, you'll get tails (-$1), then tails again (-$2), and then heads on your third flip (+$4) and win a dollar. Given that as the number of flips trends towards infinity, that probability of *eventually* flipping heads becomes 100%, the Martingale is theoretically a "fool-proof" system to win a dollar from a coin-flip game.

It's theoretically fool-proof. If you have infinite time to make infinite flips and infinite money to fund them. In practice, occasionally, you'll get 19 tails in a row. It's extraordinarily rare, sure, but it happens. And then, on the next coin flip, you'll be on the hook to bet more than a half-million dollars (after having already lost more than a half-million dollars). And the upside, if you succeed, is you get to walk away from the whole affair with a single dollar in profit. (The downside if you fail, of course, is you've now lost a million dollars and are on the hook for betting a million more.)

Under real-world constraints, the Martingale has an extraordinarily high chance of winning you a dollar and an extraordinarily small chance of subjecting you to complete and total financial ruin. If that opportunity was presented as a single bet, few people would likely take it-- but break it up over a series of bets and suddenly people love it. At least until they find themselves wagering $16,384 to win a dollar.

(You could, of course, cap your maximum bet to guard against financial ruin, but the lower the cap, the more likely you are to hit it before you flip heads. Your downside risk is lower, but your chances of losing money are higher. Still, this is a very wise decision if you ever decide to try the Martingale, which you absolutely should not. And remember, too, that Vegas can likewise cap its bets. Good luck finding a casino willing to wager billions on a coin flip, even if they think the odds are tilted slightly in their favor.)

Most betting systems are like this. They ignore real-world constraints, or they fail to account for the disproportionate downside risks compared to the relatively meager upside. This is the gambler's dilemma: there is no betting system that will make negative expected value bets profitable-- but there are lots of betting systems that will make positive expected value bets unprofitable.

If there were a fool-proof way to "get" Vegas, Vegas would have gotten got by now, and yet when last I checked, they were still building more casinos. In fact, the only way I know of to turn a profit from a betting system is to convince some poor suckers to pay you to teach them their betting system.

You're almost certainly not going to make money from betting, at least not in the long run. (Though you'll have plenty of streaks in the short run that might give you that illusion.) But as I keep saying, there are reasons to gamble beyond "making money". If you treat it as entertainment, treat your losses as the cost of that entertainment, and never wager more than you can afford, it's a good way to increase your enjoyment of something you already like. A good betting system can highlight that aspect of gambling to further increase your enjoyment.

Good betting systems focus not on the odds of making a profit but on the odds of enjoying the journey. You can buy futures for your team to win the Super Bowl to make good seasons more exciting. You can bet extreme long-shots or 6-leg parlays and daydream about what you'd do if they actually hit. (From a pure "expected value" standpoint, parlays are among the worst bets you can make, but they'll get you a hell of a lot better return than buying lottery tickets and are a lot more exciting than watching a drum full of balls spin around.)

I'm personally partial to something I call the "fan hedge"; when my favorite team is in a big game (and especially when they're heavily favored), I'll bet the moneyline for their opponent. If my team wins, I'm so happy that the financial loss doesn't sting. If my team loses, at least I have a wad of cash to show for it.

(You can even apply the "fan hedge" to your fantasy football leagues. If you're in the championship game heading into Monday Night Football with a lead and your opponent only has one player left to play, you can bet the "over" on that player's yardage prop. If they have a huge game, you lose your fantasy league, but at least you make a little bit of money off of it.)

Certainly, you don't need me to tell you what is fun for you. Just remember, at the end of the day, if "making money" is your target, you're probably going to wind up disappointed. Make "increasing excitement" and "having fun" your target instead, and you'll win even if-- when-- you lose.

Lines I'm Seeing

Just as we decided, Brian Flores looks like the most Motivated man in football and is committed to picking the Vikings every week going forward, but they failed to cover for the first time all season. (Don't fact-check this.) Still, I'm not the sort of fickle analyst who abandons an angle after a single loss. It'll take two losses for me to cut bait.

(Meanwhile, the Steelers remain as Hungry as their coach, who I'm pretty sure could lead the team until the heat death of the universe and still never finish a year below .500.)

Minnesota (-5) vs. Indianapolis

We were picking the Vikings this week no matter what, but the Schedule Gods gifted us with an unanticipated bonus: they happen to be facing the Indianapolis Colts. The same Colts whose quarterback voluntarily took himself off the field last week because he needed a break-- the clearest possible indicator that he doesn't have that Fire In His Belly.

Does it matter that the quarterback in question won't be starting this week? Of course not; attitude is contagious, and the Colts are incubating a particularly virulent strain of Not Wanting It Badly Enough.

Houston (+2) at NY Jets

Aaron Rodgers has won four league MVPs and a Super Bowl. He's 150-81-1 for his career. Clearly, he's Wanted It Badly for a long time. And there's a good chance he'll Want It Badly once again... if the Jets go out and sign just one more of his friends. For real this time-- this is the last one, we promise.

The Iced Coffee Lock of the Week

Iced Coffee might be terrible, but the Iced Coffee Lock of the Week is 1-0, and nothing tastes better than sweet victory. (Victory also tastes good when it's savory.)

Arizona (-1.5) vs. Chicago

Some might raise their eyebrows at the idea of picking Kyler Murray the week the new Call of Duty game releases, but the pseudorandom number generator finds that particular narrative ridiculous. (For the record, the idea that Murray's play will be predictably impacted by the release of a video game is ridiculous. So is the idea of picking games via a pseudorandom number generator. Fortunately for us, in a market this sharp the ridiculous is every bit as good as the reasonable; over the long run, both will trend toward 50%. So if you want to pick NFL contests based on video game release schedules-- or, hypothetically, perceived motivation differentials-- by all means be my guest.)