EppleySports

  12/19/20 - Reached 7K picks and a 1.43% ROI. So had you joined me about a year ago in November 2019 when I reached 5K picks and a 1.5% ROI, you would have made $2860 per $100 bet. A $500 bettor would have made $14,300. It's not luck or coincidence, my ROI has been between 1.3% and 1.5% for years now. You will not find anyone with a better long-term documented record. Stop wasting time with social media guys claiming they are pro's - none of them are. Stop wondering if the guy with a 20% ROI after 300 picks can maintain it - none of them can. In the long-run, all of them lose. That's why they won't document their picks on a legitimate third-party site. The few brave souls who do, all end up with losing records. The very few pro's who actually win long-term are not posting picks anywhere online. So you're extremely lucky to have found the only one who is. Come join me and start winning like a pro. College basketball was 7-4 yesterday, NFL was 2-1, EPL was 1-0. 

I've reached 5K documented picks with a 1.5% ROI on Pickmonitor.com.   Nobody else is above 1% ROI with 5K picks.   For those that don't know, the ROI is how much you expect to make on each bet.  An example: Let's say you bet $100 per game and have a long-term ROI of 1.5%.  That means your expectation is to make $1.50 on every bet - doesn't matter if the bet wins or loses.  If you make 2500 bets in a year, your annual profit expectation is $3750.  About 99% of people who bet on sports have a negative ROI, which means they are long-term losers.  Let's consider a guy who bets only standard -110 bets and wins 50% of his bets.  His ROI is -4.76%.  So he will lose $4.76 on every bet he makes - again it doesn't matter if the bet wins or loses.  At 2500 bets in a year, he will lose -$11,900.   His winning percentage would have to increase to 52.4% to break even in a year.  So what long-term ROI do pro's have?  The very best in the world, less than 1% of sports

So you look through a list of handicappers and see a bunch of statistics, but which ones are based on skill and which ones are throwing darts and getting lucky?   The first thing you should look for is the number of non-correlated picks.  That means if there's a pick on the side, run-line, and first five innings of the same game, that counts as 1 pick, not 3 picks.  So the record might say 3-0, but you have to look through the record to determine how often there's correlated picks and subtract them out.  That gives you the real number of picks to compare to other handicappers.  I don't make correlated picks.  So now how many non-correlated picks is enough to identify skill?  Here's a little cheat sheet you can use.  For you math geeks, I know these aren't exact, but they are very close and easy to remember and use. A winning record with: 1000 picks.  About 10% chance record is based on luck. 2000 picks.  About 9% chance record is based on luck. 5000 picks. 

I'm not one to spend much time promoting myself on Pickmonitor or on any social media, but I wanted to mention an accomplishment I thought would give all of you even more confidence that you're following one of the very few people who actually wins long-term.  I'm 1 of only 3 on Pickmonitor to make 4K picks with an ROI > 1%.   Tens of thousands of accounts and you won't find any active account with a better record.  Feel free to tell your friends. As good as that is, consider that's with the baseball record all screwed up due to years of not grading pitching changes correctly.  That's why I have a link to a baseball spreadsheet listed above so there's an accurate record.  Notice baseball is down -0.90% this year but certainly recovering from a lousy start.  It's a long season, the profit will come. Well enough self-promotion crap, what have you done for me today! MLB San Diego -105 (Strahm, xFIP 4.65) vs Milwaukee (Davies, xFIP 4.90).  Davies h