Skip to content

✔️Fezzik Says Betting $40K To Win $1K Pays Off Long Run

Top Sportsbooks

9.9

Bovada

75% Cash Bonus
Read Review
9.8

BetOnline

100% Free Play
Read Review
9.6

Heritage Sports

100% Free Play Bonus
Read Review
9.6

BetAnySports

30% Cash Bonus
Read Review
9.5

Everygame

100% Cash Bonus
Read Review
9.5

Bookmaker

25% Cash Bonus
Read Review

Wagerallsports

Wagerallsports

Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Messages
57,739

Despite historic loss, pro says betting $40K to win $1K pays off​

LV REVIEW JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION

Most people like to bet a little to win a lot. Longtime Las Vegas pro sports bettor Steve Fezzik often bets a lot to win a relative little.

That strategy backfired in historic fashion in last year’s NCAA Tournament, when Fezzik lost $80,000 in money-line wagers to win about $1,800 on heavily favored Purdue (-4,500) to beat Fairleigh Dickinson.

The Boilermakers, who were 23½-point favorites, became the second No. 1 seed to lose to a No. 16 seed when the Knights dealt them a shocking 63-58 defeat in the biggest point-spread upset in March Madness history.

I asked Fezzik this week about his thought process behind that bet and similar wagers.

“To be fair, I’ve done very well making bets like this through the years,” he said.

It’s a simple case of math for Fezzik, 60, a former actuary from Dayton, Ohio, who studied probability and statistics at Northwestern, where he earned a degree in industrial engineering.

NCAA basketball favorites of between 22 and 24½ points have won 449 of 454 games since 2006, according to boydbets.com, for a winning percentage of 98.9. That equates to a -9,090 money line, while a 98.0 win percentage equates to -4,999.

So Fezzik believes he has an edge when he can lay less than -5,000 in those games. He said he routinely lays -4,000 and will do so again in the NCAA Tournament.

“I bet $40,000 all the time to win $1,000. But it’s something you probably shouldn’t be doing unless you’re a guy with a documented track record and strong math history,” he said. “The real key number is when you get a favorite above 22 points and I can lay -4,000. That would be the sweet spot.”

Deja Purdue

He told me that Tuesday. As fate would have it, on Wednesday he posted on X that he was on Villanova -4,000 on the money line over DePaul in the Big East tournament.

Fezzik told me that he actually bet $38,000 to win $1,000 on the Wildcats, who were as high as 24½-point favorites over the Blue Demons, who went 0-20 in the conference in the regular season.

But it was deja Purdue all over again as DePaul led by eight in the second half and was up 57-55 in the final seconds. This time, Fezzik and Villanova escaped a massive upset when Justin Moore made a 3-pointer with eight seconds left to lift the Wildcats to a 58-57 win. The Blue Demons (3-29) ended their season on a 20-game losing streak.

“The insane thing is that this game I had the upmost confidence there was no way DePaul was good enough to win,” Fezzik said in a text message after the game. “Two close games against Georgetown, 18 blowout losses. Crazy.

“I actually loved this bet. I was regretting not getting more. Until about five minutes left in the game.”

Will Fezzik bet Purdue on the money line again in a No. 1-No. 16 matchup? He recently posted that question in a poll on X (@FezzikSports), where “Yes, 99% bets -4000 good” won over “No, he cannot be that dumb.”

“I’ll certainly go to the well with it again,” he said. “The key here is bankroll management.

“I should’ve done a better job of telling people don’t bet more than 5 percent of your bankroll. That’s a good rule of thumb for almost all bettors.”

Contest king, tout

Fezzik has won more than $1.5 million in prize money in handicapping contests since he left his job in Los Angeles as a vice president for Transamerica and moved to Las Vegas in 2001 to become a full-time pro sports bettor.

“I was making more per hour than my corporate job and having way more fun,” said Fezzik, whose real name is Steve Fenic.

The only back-to-back winner of the Westgate SuperContest (in 2008 and 2009), Fezzik was in contention in the Circa Sports Million contest last season before finishing 21st in a field of 5,274 with a 56-31-3 record against the spread (64.4 percent).

He also cashed in the Circa Survivor contest in which four winning entries split the $9.2 million prize for $2.3 million apiece. Fezzik bought 16 percent of Greg Jones’ entry, which equates to about $370,000, and Jones said he wouldn’t have won without his partner’s help.

Despite his success, Fezzik is a polarizing figure in sports betting, mostly because he sells his picks on pregame.com.

“There’s a feeling that 90 percent of these pick sellers lose and they’re ‘scamdicappers’ and they’re bad guys,” he said. “The truth is 90 percent of pick sellers do indeed lose. But the vast majority of the ones I’ve met are hard-working, diligent people.

“It’s not that they’re scamming anyone. It’s just really hard to win.”
 

sharpsquare

sharpsquare

Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
2,794
It's an interesting take for sure and def something that doesn't seem like smart business for the average Joe sports bettor. But if one is skilled enough at finding the edges then perhaps it can be a profitable long term thing.
 

JDS

JDS

Joined
Dec 11, 2021
Messages
48,325
That guy has no fuckin‘ balls that’s his first problem. That was definitely a shameful admission on his part to reveal that. If he’s doing that on a consistent basis it tells me he has zero confidence in his handicapping abilities. Is this guy a tout ? 🤔
 

quantumleap

quantumleap

Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Messages
4,074
While the "math" does indeed check out correctly, the odds are better than the percentage of the event occurring, there is such a thing as variance. If you get 2, or even 3 of these losses in a short amount of time you can get buried.

This seems to me to be a case of "not being able to see the forest for the trees" type of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDS

2the9s

2the9s

Joined
Nov 1, 2021
Messages
2,393
I used to bet a lot of bridgejumpers, but imo the markets have become drastically more efficient and the opportunities aren't there like they used to be.

Nevertheless, value is value. If you have the bankroll for it, then it doesn't matter if the line is -5000 +100 or +5000, take the +EV when you can get it.

Just my opinion...
 

djefferis

djefferis

Joined
Jan 8, 2024
Messages
2,952
Interesting.

Not being aware of his background prior to this story - the comments of no balls and short sighted just about fit the stereotypical actuary type I’ve dealt with.

No - they have no balls/to them it’s “not gambling” if the laws of probability say there is a 99% chance of something going one way - they assume it’s a guarantee and take the small premium for the opposite occuring.

There is of course no “handicapping” involved in this - you look at the projected results - and thumbs up or thumbs down. It’s automatic in their minds they will collect and never pay. When the meter moves to a point that something in the models suggest it’s an unfavorable risk - they simply pass.

Yet these models are flawed as they only predict based off “past performance” - they can’t predict based on the current - what if someone’s sick, injured, in a contract dispute or contract year - all human factors that get left out of models as they are too specific to gather a large sample size from.

Top it off with there IS a human factor in setting lines - so your battling man vs machine basically. Man will always win long term as man can sense and feel instantly - machines can only learn from past mistakes they make repeatedly. The thing is a repeat mistake in this style of betting is VERY costly to someone. Guys like this stay alive only by not incurring the cost of mistakes with their own bankroll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDS

KVB

KVB

Joined
Apr 11, 2023
Messages
14,640
I would agree with the general premise that, while the vig can be higher, books can only hang so much of a price on some things.

Many bettors refuse to bet after a certain price and in the end it's just an arbitrary limit they've placed, with no real reason for it.

I've posted many times that those bettors are often leaving money on the table, especially in the MLB.
 

KVB

KVB

Joined
Apr 11, 2023
Messages
14,640
One of this issues is the erosion of vigorish when you adjust your bet size.

I've often told the board, at their level of betting, that keeping a flat stake is wisest. If you change your bet size to whatever the favorite price is, then you are allowing your risk vary widely, it's spattered all over the room.

Keep your risk flat and let the book's risk play Jackson Pollock in the sportsbook.

Then again, at -5000 prices, there has to be some compromise. It's a game in and of itself. You get value where you can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JDS

quantumleap

quantumleap

Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Messages
4,074
He used to be a regular at TheRx back in the day

Always seemed like a decent guy
Yeah, he was. Seemed like a real good guy.

I sat at a table at an RX Bash back in 2005. Also at the table was Winkyduck. I remember Fezzik talking to Winkyduck and I something about an NHL game with a low total has a better chance of covering the +1.5 puck line than a normal game because there was less of a chance of a team outscoring the other by 2 in a game with a low total.
 

KVB

KVB

Joined
Apr 11, 2023
Messages
14,640
NHL game with a low total has a better chance of covering the +1.5 puck line than a normal game because there was less of a chance of a team outscoring the other by 2 in a game with a low total.

This is a fundamental concept that spans nearly all sports.

The higher the final score in the game, the more likely the favorite, if indeed the better team, will cover the spread.

Generally. Think about it.

Many correlated parlays, now banned, were born out of this.
 
Top