Online investing possibilities!

The question that I ask myself when choosing a poker game to play is, 'Where does my advantage come from?' If I feel that there are not enough recreationals in the game or they make too few mistakes, I don't sit down there.

What's the scientific explanation of the profitability of your scheme (of its potential to beat the management fees, which, I've heard, are often significant, like poker rake, as the owner of the program has an incentive to milk his coinvestors dry like poker sites milk deposits)? Is your confidence based on anything else than blind faith and good results over a small sample with underestimated variance?

Ah OK, I've dot a bit of Youtube research and it looks like the scheme is based on forking aka 'sure betting' (betting in opposite directions at different sites to make use of the accidental arbitrage - difference in odds).

Guess what. Bookies are well aware of forkers. Sometimes they offer insanely good odds on some unpopular game specifically to detect, trap and ban such abusers, or at least, reduce their betting limits.

And when the owner of the robot gets caught and restricted by bookies, he'll no longer have money to pay out dividends to his coinvestors.

So the scheme looks like another Ponzi, sorry.

Hey tonypmm,

you are right that those might be some possibilities and I think for someone who is interesting in investing online that is always a probability to get scammed. you can compare this with poker too if you want.for example someone wants 500$ to play 1k games 7$ SnG. after a month he makes 300$ win decided to steal the money and keep it for themselves.there is always this possibility.But if you think long term that is not profitable.If he would have returned that money he would have been another time staked and maybe later even for 15$.So in the first case he wins 800$ (500$ from the stakers and 300$ his winnings) but if you think in the second scenario in a few month reaching 15$ and a bit more volume he can make 800$ monthly and always have people willing to stake him when he needs.

Now considering this example I think in online investing is the same.The thing is how could we know if the guy in who I invest thinks long term or wants just to steal the money?
There is always going to be a bit of a risk and now I am going to say why I choose BetRobot:
- minimum invest is 20$ which I can afford to lose if things go wrong
- you get 6% per day and withdrawing limit is 20$ when you want and goes very fast

for example I decided to invest 100$. Every day I get 6$ from my investment so every 4 days I can withdraw 24$ until I have my 100$ back and that invest there only my profit (which by the end of the month will be 80$)

I hope it makes sense and you can see it from another perspective.

I was aware that your investment scheme is like staking. However, my point is that, even if the 'horse' is honest in investor relations, the success depends not only on him but also on the bookies' willingness to close their eyes to his 'irregular betting patterns' designed to rob them.

Compare that to staking a player who is known to use a real-time poker or casino bonus bot and thus likely to be banned and have his funds confiscated. The risk / reward ratio depends mainly not on the horse's ability to make a skillful bot profile but on the quality of the security department of the poker / casino site.

Although poker sites have started adopting the 'revenue equals deposits minus withdrawals' mindset too and trying to deter winning players, poker still remains a competition between players where the house (the gambling site) is merely a mediator taking rake as a royalty for policing the game. In sports betting, this is true only for betting exchanges like Betfair. Otherwise betting is a game against the house, and so is any casino game. Don't mess around with the house - it's not going to let you abuse it for long.

I mean, bookies usually have no grounds to confiscate funds, but they do have the right to restrict one's betting limits severely, therefore, if someone claims that he'll be able to use a profitable betting scheme on a large scale for long enough, I really doubt that his magnitude of profit will be sustainable. Sooner or later, he'll have his limits restricted everywhere and will no longer to be able to keep up with the large liability to pay dividends to the investors.

Therefore, as with any Ponzi scheme, the early adopters make a profit at the expense of those who get onto the ship too late when it's already been hit by an iceberg - the early adopters get room in the lifeboats (get paid by the owner out of his last available assets, as the owner wishes to attract more investments that are doomed to fail) but the late birds don't.

The problem is that it's hard to tell whether you're an early bird or too late, as the collapse always takes the investors by surprise.

Originally posted by tonypmm
I was aware that your investment scheme is like staking. However, my point is that, even if the 'horse' is honest in investor relations, the success depends not only on him but also on the bookies' willingness to close their eyes to his 'irregular betting patterns' designed to rob them.

Compare that to staking a player who is known to use a real-time poker or casino bonus bot and thus likely to be banned and have his funds confiscated. The risk / reward ratio depends mainly not on the horse's ability to make a skillful bot profile but on the quality of the security department of the poker / casino site.

Although poker sites have started adopting the 'revenue equals deposits minus withdrawals' mindset too and trying to deter winning players, poker still remains a competition between players where the house (the gambling site) is merely a mediator taking rake as a royalty for policing the game. In sports betting, this is true only for betting exchanges like Betfair. Otherwise betting is a game against the house, and so is any casino game. Don't mess around with the house - it's not going to let you abuse it for long.

I understand your point of view, but so bad is it not.

"Apparently, bookmakers may not like the fact that a certain player walks sway every month with a solid amount. In this case, they can come up with all kinds of obstructions – bans or payment recalls, for instance. But if a bookmaker cares about reputation, it’s less probable that they will use such methods. Betting exchanges are different. They don’t care about surebetters, as they make money on charging a commission on wins and it’s the players who play there. That’s why surebetting on exchanges is safer."

Play poker only not play casino and said *investment*