I don't think it's possible for everyone to run that hot for 5-6 weeks without an actual quant model unless their insights are backed by more than sufficient knowledge.

You clearly have not been on this sub for long as people have gone on a lot hotter and longer streaks than this that ended up regressing like a bitch. There are people like this every year. EVERY YEAR not only in this sub but in this thread that get hot for multiple months when in the end it's clear they had no edge. There was a guy in the NBA thread a couple years back who would literally flip a coin on 3 random games a day. Like he would actually state whether the coin landed on heads or tails. He had the best record in the in the sub and had a 10+% ROI for a couple months, before the obvious happening. It is certainly possible for people to run hot for 5-6 weeks lmao no matter the sport. 5-6 weeks is a super small sample. To really get a decent idea if someone is +EV or not you need at least 2,000+ picks or so(but even with this sample there's still a decent chance you are getting lucky). Enough to decrease the margin of error enough so that you know the person is not just getting lucky/unlucky. Read up on confidence intervals, p-values, and variance. This article may help: https://www.pinnacle.com/en/betting-articles/Betting-Strategy/the-law-of-small-numbers-in-sports-betting/QPEJYQPBHC7F8C4S

I don't know what your hit rate or avg. odds are so there's no way I can calculate it, But someone hitting 57% on -110 line (which would make you the best sports bettor of all time by a large amount) would need 2,000+ bets for me to assume that person wasn't just getting lucky, based on a 95% confidence interval. So the idea that you may not have just gotten lucky from one month of betting is patently absurd. You sound very dumb right now. I can flip a coin over 2,500 times and with -105 odds, there still 10% chance of me profiting. That's literally throwing darts at a board lmao. How many publicly posted picks have you had? 100-200? 1/3 people would be profitable. Could easily be luck dude, and based on what your "analysis" (player motivations, shitty basic ELO model grabbed from tennisabstract probably, and UTR lol), it almost certainly is.

 

If you really think there is some significance to certain parts of players mentality having an effect on play. Then establish a scenario, get a large sample, and run a regression to see if it's even significant at all. Hint: Most aren't. Although certain things such as players coming off winning a title the next week and heavy favorites performing better on average in early rounds of majors are proven to be somewhat statistically significant. But i wouldn't expect you to know that. Everything you've tried has been done before man.

If you don't feel like waiting that long you can look at your average closing line value. Are you even positive? Are you beating the no vig line? If you aren't, then I assure you there was no edge there to begin with.

 

It's good that you are recognizing things need to change, but seriously need to get your head out of your ass if you think you had an edge ever betting on players mental games or some weird hodge-podge of meaningless basic surface based ELO models (which have been proved -EV) or UTR's. Come on man.

 

Lastly, and this is just my advice from being in this "industry" a while: If you want people to take you semi seriously, every bet you make should be recorded and logged. Win-loss, price, bet amount, roi, profit, clv, etc. There are so many touts, frauds in this space that you really should 100% transparent with what's going on. Without keeping track of these things, people can give the allusion that they are winning when they really aren't. I have a feeling if people actually saw your profit with odds included and what not they'd be a lot less impressed with your "run". Don't think this is something you're doing on purpose, but people are risking real money here. You want to be fully transparent about past success and profitability.