The Myth of Doctor Bob

[Reagan]

The Myth of Dr. Bob

He is a legend to some. ESPN once said he was going to bring down Las Vegas. The Wall Street Journal called him “peerless” when it came to predicting the outcome of college football games. The orgy of hype reached its peak in 2005-06: a $100 per star bettor made $15,570 playing Dr. Bob’s picks in football and basketball. That season built on the successes of 2004 and 2005. A bettor made $7,250 in 2003-04 and $2,680 in 2004-05 betting Dr. Bob’s picks on a $100 per star basis.

That was then, this is now. Since those giddy days of 2006, Dr. Bob has been a drain on his clients’ bankroll. In 2006-07, the same $100 bettor lost $630 without even considering the dollars spent subscribing to Dr. Bob’s service. He did well in college football (considered his specialty), but Bob’s NFL struggles (-$2190) and net losses in basketball wiped out the positive units won in college football.

Dr. Bob hit a new low in 2007-08. The college football specialist was anything but when it came to handicapping the college game. Our hypothetical $100 bettor lost $4410 following Dr. Bob’s advice. He did even worse in college basketball, losing $4960 over just 248 plays (not counting pushes). The pro game was better; Dr. Bob was +$4260 playing both the NFL and NBA. In total, however, his backers lost over $5,000 to the bookies. They paid him thousands of dollars for the privilege.

Dr. Bob made a nice comeback last season, winning $2050 for his subscribers on a $100 per star basis. “I had a successful season last year (2008-2009) and I was up a very solid 35% overall after factoring in juice. I was up 51% in Football and down 7% in Basketball,” wrote Dr. Bob on his website. “It's also worth mentioning that while a 35% ROI is spectacular when compared to even the best years of the stock, real estate, currencies or commodities markets, it's particularly satisfying in a year like 2008, where many of those markets lost half of their value or more.”

Sadly, this “spectacular” year failed to earn our $100 bettor any money. What Dr. Bob did not mention was his $2495 fee for his football-basketball combo season subscriptions. Dr. Bob made our bettor $2,050. Our bettor paid Dr. Bob $2,495 for the right to win that $2,050. Net loss: $450. Still better than the market, right Bob?

So let’s take Bob’s record year to year from the start of the 2003 football season:

• 2003-2004: Gross profit, $7,250. Fee: $1,695. Net profit: $5,555
• 2004-2005: Gross profit, $2,679. Fee: $2,495. Net profit: $184
• 2005-2006: Gross profit, $15,570. Fee: $2495. Net profit: $13,075.
• 2006-2007: Gross loss: -$630. Fee: $2495. Net loss: -$3,125
• 2007-2008: Gross loss: -$5,110. Fee: $2495. Net loss: -$7605
• 2008-2009: Gross profit: $2,050. Fee: $2495. Net loss: -$445

Somehow, these high fees aren’t mentioned in Dr. Bob’s boasts of his past successes. $21,800 in winnings over six years becomes just $7,700 once Bob’s changes are factored into the equation. No wonder he prefers to sell the picks rather than bet them.

The start of this season hasn’t gotten any better for Dr. Bob. Bob is 35-39-3 on star basis for his college football picks. He hasn’t played much in the NFL, but the 9-4 record brings his overall numbers to 44-43-3 (-$330). Bad luck he says. Of course. Welcome to the world of gambling. And please. Enough with the fuzzy math. It is unbecoming.

[durito]

Fuzzy math?

Tell me what a 1/2 kelly bettor starting in 2000 with 10k has today following dr bob for those 8 years?

If you are betting $100 flat per unit, you can't afford that package.

[Reagan]

Originally Posted by durito

Fuzzy math?

Tell me what a 1/2 kelly bettor starting in 2000 with 10k has today following dr bob for those 8 years?

If you are betting $100 flat per unit, you can't afford that package.

Fuzzy math is failing to count the cost of his service into his profit/loss. I won't even start with his failure to include his baseball losses into his record or the fact that it is a joke to presume that his handicapping method that worked 5 years ago will work today. What would that half Kelly bettor have made over the last three years following Bob?

As for small bettors not buying his package, maybe Dr. Bob should mention that on his site instead of this:

In fact, if you’re going to be wagering on sports you probably can’t afford not to use my service since most amateurs, and most other professional handicappers, don’t even win 50% of their bets.

[durito]

If you can't figure out how to incorporate the cost of the subscription into your analysis of whether to buy the package, then you shouldn't be investing in anything.

Making up $100 as a base flat unit and basing your analysis on that is absurd. Why not use $5? Then he does even worse.

[jwunderdog]

How is Bob doing this year? I haven't seen any records lately.

[Reagan]

Originally Posted by durito

If you can't figure out how to incorporate the cost of the subscription into your analysis of whether to buy the package, then you shouldn't be investing in anything.

Making up $100 as a base flat unit and basing your analysis on that is absurd. Why not use $5? Then he does even worse.

Who is the one being absurd here? $100 per unit is reasonable; it is the standard base unit used for money lines after all. If you'd like to make the base unit $159 or $921 or $14,305, feel free to post the results here...I don't care.

Speaking of absurd, what is your opinion of an employee of another gambling forum, acting as Dr. Bob's lawyer, threatening to shut down other forums because they posted Dr. Bob's plays? I think I would define that as absurd, especially when his own forum not only posts other tout's copyrighted plays, but has its own separate section for doing so.

[fiveteamer]

Don't fukk with durito.

[evo34]

Originally Posted by durito

If you can't figure out how to incorporate the cost of the subscription into your analysis of whether to buy the package, then you shouldn't be investing in anything.

Making up $100 as a base flat unit and basing your analysis on that is absurd. Why not use $5? Then he does even worse.

Well said. While it's absolutely worth noting the decline of Dr. Bob's performance over the years, the original article is simply angry and alarmist. No expensive service is going to be net profitable for a small gambler. Why would the service provider choose to highlight this? He's running a business, not a public service organization.