How Betting Syndicates Work: My Experience Working With One

If you've been following me for a while, you may have noticed I haven't been providing any picks this season. The reason is simple: I've been collaborating with a betting syndicate. In this article, I'll explain how it works.

First, a quick disclaimer: I'm not going to describe how a syndicate operates from the inside — I don't work in their office, and I'm not part of their team. What I can share is how it works from my side: the structure, the deal, and what collaborating with one actually looks like in practice.

I've also spoken with them about what I'm allowed to share publicly. Everything below is within what they've cleared me to say.

How It Started

It all started when I was contacted by them a few months ago. They told me they'd been following my work for a while and might be interested in working together.

The first thing they asked was whether I had a verifiable record of my bets. I shared the one I had on a tipster platform, tracked at Pinnacle prices.

They understand variance and volatility better than anyone. My last few years haven't been great (I even had some negative years), but they trust the long term.

I had an online interview and I started working with them in autumn last year. The last few months of 2025 were basically a trial run. The real thing started this year.

What They Do (As Far As I Know)

I've asked them a lot of questions about how they operate, but the truth is they're very discreet.

I don't know much more than they have a team of quantitative analysts modelling matches and generating fair odds.

They asked me whether I did modelling too, and I was honest: no, I didn't. My selection process is based on experience, supported by stats and data, yes, but I don't currently run a system that outputs my fair odds for every match.

How They Use My Picks

I still don't actually know whether they bet what their own models produce and then allocate part of their bankroll to mine, or whether they blend my picks with their model outputs in some structured way.

I asked them, but they preferred not to explain how they operate, only that they would pay me based on the results of my picks.

My guess is that my plays are used as an input to fine-tune their fair odds rather than as "auto-bets."

If their model says the value is clearly on Fritz at current prices and I tell them Zverev, they're probably not going to take Zverev just because I said so. But if their model already likes Fritz and I also tell them Fritz, they might be more confident and stake more aggressively than they otherwise would.

Again: that's my intuition. I'm not sure.

Also, I never know whether they've actually bet a player I've sent. Sometimes I can guess by watching line movement, but that's still just a guess. I send my picks and that's it. They don't tell me their fair odds, and they don't tell me whether they bet my pick or passed.

In fact, sometimes I've seen significant drops a few minutes or a few hours after I sent my picks, while other times I've seen no movement at all—or even movement in the opposite direction—so I assumed those were picks they didn't bet.

Besides, I obviously can't publish the picks I send them, and I can't comment on anything publicly either. That's only logical.

The Compensation Structure

They pay me based on the results of the picks I send, at the market price at the time I send the pick.

I can also give conditional guidance, like: "Bet here, but only if the price drops to a certain level." If odds reach that level, they'll compute it as if the bet was placed at that minimum price.

My compensation is 20% of their "supposed" winnings. But since I can't know how much they actually stake, and since their action is not necessarily based only on my picks, we agreed on a structure where, for settlement purposes, they assume a fixed stake size (X USD) on every bet.

They told me I cannot disclose how much X is.

Even if we assume they're only betting my picks and we ignore their models, on some bets they could stake more, on others less, and on others nothing at all. I don't know. They could even be betting much more than what they tell me; I have no way to verify that.

But the key point is this: with this structure, I know what I can make without having to blindly trust their reported staking. Maybe they're betting more than the assumed X, but as long as 20% of the profits on X is a good deal for me, I'm happy with the agreement.

In the past I worked for a different syndicate where my pay depended directly on what they claimed they had staked. Sometimes they told me they hadn't bet, or had bet very little, and I simply had to accept it.

This setup is different: we chose figures I'm comfortable with, so even if they're betting more than the assumed X on average, the deal is still good enough for me.

Normally, syndicates that work with external tipsters structure it as x% of Y, where x% is the profit share (5%, 10%, 20%, 25%...) and Y is their stake size. For example, if the stake were $5,000 and I get a 20% profit share, a winning bet at odds of 2.0 would earn me 0.20 × 1.0 × 5,000 = $1,000. Of course, wins and losses are netted — I only get paid on the overall profit at settlement.

If you focus on x% but you can't control Y, because you can't truly know what they're staking, then what matters is whether you're comfortable with the combination. What's the point of having 30% of profits if they can tell you they bet 3k when they're really betting 8k? You know what I mean.

Our deal is for one year, and the first settlement will be done after six months. If I'm in profit, they'll pay me my share. Obviously, if my picks don't generate any profit. I won't be paid a penny.

Rules and Restrictions

There are restrictions on what I can send: They only accept main-draw matches: no Challengers, and no qualifying rounds, even for Masters 1000.

I am also subject to a minimum liquidity threshold (which I'm not allowed to share). In other words, if a match has limited liquidity, even if it is on match day, they can't accept that bet.

And this is important: I can only send bets on match day.

Expected Performance and Yield

On expected performance, they've told me they expect a minimum yield of 3%, computed at Pinnacle odds.

You might think 3% is not much, but consider this.

If you only bet at Pinnacle, you might face something like ~2.7–8% implied margin. But they don't bet only at Pinnacle, they use other bookmakers and exchanges too—so you're effectively competing against an average margin closer to ~2% or even lower across the full set of outlets they can access.

So if you deliver 3% yield on top of that, you're effectively outperforming true fair odds by roughly 5%.

I know that even if my picks show a 3% yield at Pinnacle prices, their true realized ROI on execution will end up being lower.

On one hand, because they don't bet exclusively at Pinnacle, they can often get filled at slightly better prices across other books and exchanges, so in theory their ROI could be higher than the Pinnacle-at-send-time yield.

On the other hand, they're staking meaningful amounts, and their own action moves the market. As soon as they start getting money down, the price typically shortens, so their average fill ends up worse than the price I'm using to measure the pick.

That execution drag is usually larger than the "better prices elsewhere" upside, so net-net, their realized ROI is surely below 3%.

According to what they've told me, delivering yields in the 1–3% range is very good for them. They operate with high volumes, both in stake size and number of bets, and that adds up to a lot of money over the course of a year.

I remember periods many years ago where I and many bettors could achieve yields well above 10%, and then that declined into high single digits as time went on. But the tennis market has become much more efficient. Honestly, I don't think I can provide now a higher ROI than 5% long term on ATP matches if I'm restricted to betting on match day.

And of course it also depends on how tight you are. They haven't required a minimum number of bets from me. So it's on me to decide whether to be very selective (fewer bets, higher expected yield) or less selective (more bets, lower expected yield).

You might be thinking it's better to deliver 2,000 picks at a 1% ROI than 500 at a 3% ROI. That's true, but 1% is so close to zero that, for me, it's not possible to reliably discern value at that level. I can't cut it that fine, so I'm forced to be a bit tight.

What About Closing Line Value?

Some of you might be thinking about Closing Line Value. Do they monitor my CLV?

The truth is: not as the basis to evaluate my 2026 results and pay me, at least not for now.

They've told me it's something they looked at when evaluating my track record, and it's obviously something they monitor, and something they'll evaluate in the future.

In other words, if I produce a 2% realized yield but my CLV is consistently very negative, they probably won't want to keep working with me, as CLV across hundreds of bets can be more statistically meaningful than short-term realized results.

So why don't they pay me based on CLV today? My guess is that they may believe it's better for me, and for my peace of mind, to be evaluated on results rather than on beating a closing number that I've never specifically targeted before.

Measuring me by CLV could also change how I select bets, and therefore change my results.

Final Thoughts

Well, that's all I can share so far.

I obviously can't say who the syndicate is, or give more details. They want full anonymity, and I even sent them this email to approve before I send it to you.

The truth is I know little about them. I don't know how much money they manage. It's all very private.

I'll post an update in a few months.