The professional punter who made more than $1m on the Sydney Roosters

[On the Nose]

The first clueless comment from someone who doesn't understand betting in the slightest and "isn't a fan of sports betting". Munster went to the bin in the 77th minute. The score at the time was 21-6. There was no betting on the game at that point, it was over. If you have no clue about things, best not to just crap on. And you say Munster is trying to get sent off? So as to throw the grand final? Munster's whole plan was to get sent off so that Melbourne would lose? He's dedicated his life to footy, he's an origin player and australian rep, and that year, he made it to an NRL Grand Final. And you're sugessting he's trying to get sent off in disgrace, and melbourne lose, to influence a bet?

Wake up for goodness sake.

I know you were up early researching the times and score for your report, but can you check again, just to be sure.. Won't take you long.

[Bates]

Nowhere did I say the house wins every hand. Of course the house doesn't win every hand.

Losing .50c out of every $100 of turnover still means losing Bates.

And that implies playing perfectly, and never making a mistake. So play the game perfectly, and you still lose.

Make an occasional mistake - which 99.9% of players do - and the house wins even more.

You're not factoring in the Martingale system and as you've mentioned above "Of course the house doesn't win every hand"

Let's do a model

Bates bet $100 - House wins
Bates bet $200 - House wins
Bates bets $600 - Bates wins
Profit $300

Bates starts again with a $100 bet. House wins
Bates bet $200 House wins
Bates bet $600 House wins
Bates Bets $1800 Bates wins
Profit $900

Bates starts again with a $100 bet etc etc

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

You're not factoring in the Martingale system and as you've mentioned above "Of course the house doesn't win every hand"

Let's do a model

Bates bet $100 - House wins
Bates bet $200 - House wins
Bates bets $600 - Bates wins
Profit $300

Bates starts again with a $100 bet. House wins
Bates bet $200 House wins
Bates bet $600 House wins
Bates Bets $1800 Bates wins
Profit $900

Bates starts again with a $100 bet etc etc

Bates you're like an adhd child

Your system is called Sub Martingale. This system loses even more than the standard Martingale.

Just like 007, you assume you'll win after 2 or 3 bets. If your $1800 bet loses, you're now down $2700. You've only lost 4 less than 50% chance outcomess in a row, not uncommon at all. What's your next bet Bates? Now you need to win $2700 just to get square. You started out betting $100. Things have gone pear shaped. Now you're on tilt and betting $thousands. On the toss of a coin. You've gone through all of this, just to get square? No, you want to win. So to win $500 for all of this outlay and this terrible situation you're now in, your next bet needs to be $3200.

What if that loses???

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

Well I don't know for sure, but I'm calling Bartholomew out as a grifter.

"Pay me and I'll teach you to be a winner like me instead of the loser 99.9% of other gamblers are"

Sounds like an irresistable offer to the average gambler.

That's just not what he's about at all. He shares his thinking and ideas for free everywhere. There were plenty in that article. And that was free. You've likely never even heard of him before. So you're right, in that you suspect you "don't know for sure".

And for the record, I am a losing punter for sure, not pretending anything otherwise. I am trying to get better though.

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

I know you were up early researching the times and score for your report, but can you check again, just to be sure.. Won't take you long.

Ok I will. Let me check. You're right, it didn't take long.

"Munster acting up during the game and seemingly wants to get sent off. Kicks joey in the head without provocation, off he goes, and everyone knows we can't lose from there."

Yep, kicked Joey in the head in the 77th minute and was sin binned. Score was 19-6, not 21-6. No difference. No betting, game is already decided. 3 minutes to go. Latrell kicks penalty goal. Barely enough time for one try, let alone 3. Oh I see, you're trying to latch onto him being sin binned previously, in the 29th minute?

That definitely shows he was trying to throw the game.

He gets paid $1million++ a year , but he would throw a grand final for a few extra bucks? By getting himself sent off on purpose, and just hoping everything else works out? So that his bet wins. And that Melbourne lose. He's actually trying to make Melbourne lose. They're exactly the type of guys Bellamy signs.

You're beyond clueless bro.

[007]

Bates you're like an adhd child

Your system is called Sub Martingale. This system loses even more than the standard Martingale.

Just like 007, you assume you'll win after 2 or 3 bets. If your $1800 bet loses, you're now down $2700. You've only lost 4 less than 50% chance outcomess in a row, not uncommon at all. What's your next bet Bates? Now you need to win $2700 just to get square. You started out betting $100. Things have gone pear shaped. Now you're on tilt and betting $thousands. On the toss of a coin. You've gone through all of this, just to get square? No, you want to win. So to win $500 for all of this outlay and this terrible situation you're now in, your next bet needs to be $3200.

What if that loses???

You've missed the point totally. We don't assume we will win after 2 or 3 bets (it may even take 6 or 7). What Bates (and mine) model does is highlight if you double your losing bet (accumulative) you would eventually win. It's simple mathematics - how can you not possibly see this?

You don't break even - you actually win.

[caz]

talked to a croupier one time and she talked about seeing people lose a lot of money using the martingale system.
don't know about this bloke but if has limits on his stakes he's probably done alright. there's an old poker saying that if you're looking around the table and wondering who the sucker is - it's you. same goes for sports betting - if you're a regular better and your bets haven't been limited chances are you've been a loser.
david walsh down in tasmania's another who's famously made good money gambling. one of the 1%ers.
i'm not a gambler but watching the odds is always food for thought

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

You've missed the point totally. We don't assume we will win after 2 or 3 bets (it may even take 6 or 7). What Bates (and mine) model does is highlight if you double your losing bet (accumulative) you would eventually win. It's simple mathematics - how can you not possibly see this?

You don't break even - you actually win.

No mate, you're missing the point. The point is you can't afford to keep doubling forever. It gets out of hand very quickly. And you don't have the money. If you were that rich, you'd not care about paying for your meal, and trying to gamble to pay for it.

You can afford to go again after 6 bets? Really? If your stake goes from $20 - $40 - $120 - $360 - $720, your next bet after that is what, $1440? Or are you tripling the bet, and making it $2160. If you lose that, all of a sudden you're now down $3420 You started out betting $20 to try and pay for your food... There's a 51.15% chance you will lose this next bet bet. Are you going again?

Tripling your next bet means that bet costs you $10,260. You started off trying to win $20!!!

Like that bet's going to be placed.

[007]

For arguments sake, I put my money on a Roulette table, and I decide to put my money on black. The odds of red coming up 5 times in a row are about 3%.

I know where I'll be putting my money.

[Bates]

Bates you're like an adhd child

Your system is called Sub Martingale. This system loses even more than the standard Martingale.

Just like 007, you assume you'll win after 2 or 3 bets. If your $1800 bet loses, you're now down $2700. You've only lost 4 less than 50% chance outcomess in a row, not uncommon at all. What's your next bet Bates? Now you need to win $2700 just to get square. You started out betting $100. Things have gone pear shaped. Now you're on tilt and betting $thousands. On the toss of a coin. You've gone through all of this, just to get square? No, you want to win. So to win $500 for all of this outlay and this terrible situation you're now in, your next bet needs to be $3200.

What if that loses???

Lol you know it works!

The difference being you wouldn't have the temperament or capital to see it through. Your middle name is tilt lol......You lose your shit at the drop of a hat.

Key is discipline with the Martingale system and boredom is your enemy. If you start getting over confident and start chipping up, or splitting doubles when you shouldn't or doubling down against the odds you are gone. It's about the long game!

You can thank me later for adding a little life to your threads which are generally soooooooooooo boring and lame zzzzzzzzz. zzzz

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

talked to a croupier one time and she talked about seeing people lose a lot of money using the martingale system.
don't know about this bloke but if has limits on his stakes he's probably done alright. there's an old poker saying that if you're looking around the table and wondering who the sucker is - it's you. same goes for sports betting - if you're a regular better and your bets haven't been limited chances are you've been a loser.
david walsh down in tasmania's another who's famously made good money gambling. one of the 1%ers.
i'm not a gambler but watching the odds is always food for thought

David Walsh is a very interesting character, he's associated with the mystery Russian punter Zeljko Ranogajec. Those guys are genius form students and also mathematicians. They send bots around all the markets and pick off the overs. In the long game, they win. Like the green zero for the house, but in reverse.

They also get a part of their losses refunded by the various TABs, for essentially making the markets. What that means is in some races without them betting, there wouldn't be much of betting market. And for tote bets the TAB takes out 18%. So they give these guys, the biggest players of all, a rebate on that 18%, as they should. That's a huge takeout. The TAB is a shrinking legacy business.

I'm not advocating people bet, but it is an iteresting thing when you look at it closely. And try to analyse what might happen.

For Roosters fans like us, and if you bet on the NRL, you have to try and get overs. That doesn't mean putting Penrirth/Storm/Brisbane in a multi.

Don't ever take multis, because even with fixed odds you cop the % bookie take twice (like compound interest in reverse)

Find a game where the outsiders are a longer price than they should be. Especially look at home team underdogs. Like The Dolphins first ever game agaist us, they were $8.70 from memory. Even teams where they are $3.50 head to head as opposed to the $1.30 favourites, they are often 50/50 games. Back the outsider, esp if they're the home team.

The home team underdog betting strategy.

[Batemans Bay Rooster]

For arguments sake, I put my money on a Roulette table, and I decide to put my money on black. The odds of red coming up 5 times in a row are about 3%.

I know where I'll be putting my money.

You choose to ignore the mathematical proof that shows that you are taking unders.

But it feels irrelevant to you, because 5 losses in a row seems unlikely

And you ignore the green zero. Too hard to think about.

You're a guaranteed loser at the game.

[007]

You choose to ignore the mathematical proof that shows that you are taking unders.

But it feels irrelevant to you, because 5 losses in a row seems unlikely

And you ignore the green zero. Too hard to think about.

You're a guaranteed loser at the game.

Too hard to think about? Is that the best you can come up with? No, not hard to think about at all. That little green zero is a 37/1 shot - I'll happily take my chances.

Guaranteed? No, on the contrary - I've won way more than I've lost. I'll keep playing the Martingale system.

["gaz"]

Not a punter as such, although the occasional flutter on the Melbourne Cup or now and then on the Roosters could happen

Late last year (2025) I had the urge and placed a bet on NRL futures Roosters to win 2026 Premiership at $8.00 and a couple of weeks later again when it us had listed for the Minor Premiers of 2026 at $10.00 (Sportsbet)
I thought it was a strange gap between the two bets when compared to say Broncos, Storm and Penrith odds.

Just checked the Roosters current odds with no games played
Premiers $7.50
Minor Premiers $8.50

Must be money backing the Roosters?

[Andrew Walker]

David Walsh is a very interesting character, he's associated with the mystery Russian punter Zeljko Ranogajec. Those guys are genius form students and also mathematicians. They send bots around all the markets and pick off the overs. In the long game, they win. Like the green zero for the house, but in reverse.

They also get a part of their losses refunded by the various TABs, for essentially making the markets. What that means is in some races without them betting, there wouldn't be much of betting market. And for tote bets the TAB takes out 18%. So they give these guys, the biggest players of all, a rebate on that 18%, as they should. That's a huge takeout. The TAB is a shrinking legacy business.

I'm not advocating people bet, but it is an iteresting thing when you look at it closely. And try to analyse what might happen.

For Roosters fans like us, and if you bet on the NRL, you have to try and get overs. That doesn't mean putting Penrirth/Storm/Brisbane in a multi.

Don't ever take multis, because even with fixed odds you cop the % bookie take twice (like compound interest in reverse)

Find a game where the outsiders are a longer price than they should be. Especially look at home team underdogs. Like The Dolphins first ever game agaist us, they were $8.70 from memory. Even teams where they are $3.50 head to head as opposed to the $1.30 favourites, they are often 50/50 games. Back the outsider, esp if they're the home team.

The home team underdog betting strategy.

Zeljko is Croatian not Russian, I worked for his company for 15 years as a racing form analyst, You are correct about TAB rebates and it is why he eventually was forced to pay tax on his winnings as he had taken the chance out of gambling. In simple terms if he outlaid $100 worth of bets and his result was collecting $97 with his rebate he made $2 We both know he bet in figures of many more zeroes Both he and David Walsh were genius mathematicians, They were not genius form students as such when it came to racing. The initial brains behind that side of the operation was a guy called Peter Bowen who was a successful pro punter in the 80s and 90s. To this day Ive still got the initial manual of how they wanted things done sitting on my desk beside me. The guy was an absolute genius on horse and harness racing.

Interesting theory re the footy Early days I made a bit of money off backing teams with the start (whom I and few others who bet a lot bigger than myself ) thought would win when they bet a$2 line The advanatge their was you think Canterbury will win they have 4.5 start so you can still be wrong and they lose by four points but you win your bet. You only nereded to be right 1/2 times to break even and if you were right 2/3 times you made 33.3 percent profit off and even stake. Sadly the bookies cottoned on pretty quickly and they offer $1.90 on the line for that type of bet. Yes you can still win doing that if you are a good judge and patient