Progressive Sports Betting Systems

A while back I was at a crossroads with my sports betting career. After more than 20 years of betting on sports here in Reno, things were becoming a bit stale for me.

So I decided to climb out of my sports betting box that I had been hiding out in and consider some betting alternatives.

I had seen and heard of these sports betting systems that were floating around on the internet that claimed to win 97% of their bets.

Since I had been around the sports betting block more than a few times, I considered these types of outlandish assertions to be ridiculous at best.

I know from spending years in the sports betting trenches how challenging it can be to handicap above the 52.38% break-even point.

Still, I was insanely curious.

In order to satisfy my inquiring mind, I went ahead and bought 3 of these systems.

They were kind of expensive, each priced between $100 and $200.

I not only bought these systems but have field tested them with cold hard cash out in the real world of sports betting.

After familiarizing myself with each of the three systems, I discovered that, for the most part, they were all based on fairly firm foundations.

Frank Belanger of Bookie Buster and Rich Allen of Sports Betting Professor both run legitimate business.

John Morrison of Sports Betting Champ runs anything but a legitimate business.

Although his system itself has some merit, my personal experience was that his honesty and integrity leave much to be desired.

He would make a world class con-artist look like a choir boy.

Bookie Buster is actually a rehash of 25 different systems (many of them the progressive type) that opened my mind to some creative ways to bet.

Both the Sports Betting Champ and Sports Betting Professor systems are progressive betting systems.

‘Progressive’ is a very polarizing term when it comes to sports betting. You are either a big fan or consider these types of systems to be gimmicky at best.

The way these systems are able to win over 90% of their bets is not with the individual picks but with a series of progression bets that constitute a betting session.

For example, Sports Betting Professor is a 3 game, “Martingale” type of progression.

If you win the 1st game in the series the betting session or progression is over and you pocket 1 unit of profit.

If you lose that 1st game then you bet the next game in the progression for an amount to recoup your loss from bet #1 as well as your original target win amount which would vary depending on your bankroll.

If the that 2nd wager goes down then the 3rd bet is made to recoup the losses from the first 2 wagers plus the original target win amount.

If the 3rd bet loses, it goes down as a system loss. You take your lumps and start over with a new betting session.

The beauty of a betting system like this is that since you don’t take any losses you are never paying any juice or vig.

Here’s the catch….

Although a system like this is designed in such a way as to rarely lose 3 games in a row, it does happen. If it happens too often during a season, most if not all of your hard won profits go down the drain.

Much that you read about progressive betting systems, whether they pertain to roulette, craps, blackjack or sports betting has a negative tone to it.

Many so called betting experts are very quick to point out that these systems eventually fail because of factors such as….

» A long losing streak will eventually wipe out your bankroll

» House betting limits will be reached before the progression ends

» Undisciplined bettors unable to stick with the system as the bet sizes rise

With a 3 game progression, the first point should never be an issue if the proper percentage of the bankroll is being risked.

The 2nd factor does not apply to sports betting like it would to a casino table game since you can always place more than one wager on the same team.

The 3rd issue is a valid one and is the overwhelming reason these systems do not work for more than 90% of sports bettors who try them out.

It’s usually operator error that is the downfall of the system; not the system itself.

Comments are closed.