Pricing Changes 438 views

Let's just rip the Band-Aid off and be real about it. While this may not be a popular topic and I may catch some flak I want to be straightforward since that aligns with our values here as a community.

Price changes are coming that will bring us up-to-date with current market conditions of other "similar" (I use that term loosely) sports handicapping products and services. I'm going to go ahead and break it down for you as I feel it is important that you see that we are dedicated to making improvements.

  1. Our current pricing model while inexpenses could also be considered punitive to our business handicappers. How can a business memeber sell a monthly package for $99 if we're offering $99/month for thousands of active handicappers? Some non-business member have GREAT results but don't want to sell. I recognize this creates unfair competition at times or our business members.
  2. Our prices are just not in line with similar services where a monthly subscription for similar services will cost between $350-$500/month.
  3. There's no margin for marketing or affiliates! No marketing or affiliates means that Pick Monitor can't scale.
  4. Prices were set by the previous owner, Patrick in 2010 and were left unchanged in almost a decade!
  5. It's currently impossible to buy single picks or a simple daily pass.

What are the new prices?

Prices only changed for subscribers to picks. Business members will remain unchanged for the time being. Good news if you're selling picks! I will also be addressing the business members pricing model to make it more affordable and potentially incorporate profit sharing for handicappers starting in the business.

All Access

The All Access pass will change from a flat 99$/month to access all non-business members picks to 5 different packages.

  • Daily - 49$
  • Weekly - 99$
  • Monthly - 349$
  • 6 Months - 999$
  • 1 Year - 1499$

At the end of the day, if you commit to a full year of Pick Monitor, you're only paying 25% more which is not that bad considering the prices have not changed in almost a decade.


I never liked the name, so I changed it (just cuz I can 😎) to Premium. The prices will change from 49$/month for 10 picks per day into 2 packages

  • 99$/month
  • 990$/yearly

The number of picks per day will also drop to 5

Single Users Package

It will now be possible for you to buy single picks and/or packages from non-business members. Prices are:

  • $10 per pick
  • $20 for 24 hours
  • $50 for 1 week
  • $100 for 1 month
  • $200 for 3 months
  • $300 for 6 months

It will also be possible to purchase each of these picks/packages using our new token system (1$ = 100 tokens).

When will the changes be effective?

The new prices are currently in place. With that in mind, you have until the end of the month (August 30 - 2019) to lock in your subscription. Simply visit the Pricing Page and select the monthly option.

What happens if I have an active subscription?

Nothing, as long as your subscription is active you won't get charged an extra dime. However, upon cancellation you will not be able to access the old pricing structure.

❓Questions ❓ 💡Suggestion 💡 🧂 You Mad 🧂

I can take it all as long as it's respectful so please comment below!

Post hidden due to low quality. Show it.

If we're going start rewarding based on the star system, it needs to be revamped. Right now, most top picks are based on samples of 50-100 games, which are not at all predictive.
E.g., a three star pick based on 60 games:

Edited 8/8/19 at 5:36PM by evo34 -


Michael awarded 100 tokens for this post.


The star system is a mess. I mean, it's working but there are so many good picks that should be rated better. It's on my todo list to attack that system to make it more meaningful. Short term I will see how people react to the new changes and I'll see in the future if the prices are appropriate.


Yep that's exactly what I meant. Meanwhile we have the beast, custom2006 that has 3.6% ROI over 3.3k games, all his MMA picks should be 5 stars.


It's a complex topic, no doubt. Here is some work showing that for those who bet huge dogs or faves, a much larger sample is required to reach significance than for those who bet at roughly even money:

There is a link to the author's t-test calculator that incorporates avg odds played at the end of this article (t-stat has potential to be used for an improved star rating system):


A couple further thoughts on the topic of evaluating past performance:

1. Correlated picks can really skew Z-score, t-test, etc., because those tests assume that all picks are independent. If a given handicapper habitually picks the spread, moneyline, team total in the same game (all highly correlated), his raw sample size will be much larger than his effective sample size. This will inflate Z-score (in either direction).

2. Effective Units is a great concept, but ultimately flawed when evaluating handicappers who have a massive difference between their smallest and largest units. Right now, the ratio of max unit to min unit is essentially infinite. E.g., if someone makes a ton of picks with 0.05 units and then a handful with 5 units, those max unit plays will dictate the ROI almost entirely. At a glance, the user will appear to have a huge sample and great ROI when in fact he may have just been lucky on 5-10 plays.

There's no perfect solution, of course, but I would suggest to address the first issue, limit users to no more than three picks on any given game. For the second issue, institute a min pick size of one unit. For favorites, it would be a min of one unit risked and for dogs a min of one unit to win. E.g., the min pick for a -500 line would be risk 1 to win 0.2, and for a +500 line, it would be risk 0.2 to win 1. IMO, this would help make bankroll management more realistic and the Effective Units calc. more stable.

Post hidden due to low quality. Show it.

Please Login or Register to reply.

Ready to start winning?

Yes, Sign me up now No, show me the handicappers first