2
5 Comments

I spent a year building an AI sports betting tool. Here's what I actually learned.

Hey IH 👋

I'm David, solo founder of PropsBot.AI. We just crossed 190,000+ tracked player prop predictions with a verified 31% ROI on our High ROI AI Signal tier. Wanted to share the story in case any of it is useful to other indie hackers building in crowded or skepticism-heavy spaces.

The problem that kicked this off:

I'm a lifelong sports bettor and a data/ML person by day. For years I was running spreadsheets trying to find player props the sportsbooks mispriced — slow, manual, inconsistent.

When I looked at the "AI betting tools" that appeared in 2024–2025, every single one I tested was a thin ChatGPT wrapper over public box scores. Not actual machine learning. Zero transparency on methodology. No published track record. Some of them charged $99/week. Felt solvable.

What I actually built:

PropsBot runs ensemble machine learning — XGBoost combined with neural networks — trained on 5+ years of player, team, matchup, and market data. Nothing revolutionary on its own, but most tools in this space literally aren't doing it.

Every prop gets scored independently by multiple models. When they agree, I surface two metrics to the user:

- Confidence Score — ML model consensus (how much the models agree)

- Edge Score — positive EV vs. the sportsbook's posted line

When a prop hits the Confidence Score threshold, we flag it as a High ROI AI Signal. Across 190,000+ tracked predictions, that specific signal tier has produced a verified 31% ROI, with the full record published for anyone to audit.

Covers NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL. $49.99/mo (or $34.99/mo annual). Free trial, no card required.

The stack:

- Backend: Python (XGBoost, TensorFlow, FastAPI)

- Data: Vendors for live odds + historical stats; daily batch retraining

- Web: WordPress for content/SEO, React front-end for the app

- Apps: React Native on iOS + Android

- Infra: Mostly managed services, one VPS for model training

- Marketing: SEO-first (comparison pages are our best-converting URLs), 50% lifetime affiliate program

What's working:

- Transparent performance dashboard. Publishing every prediction + win/loss + ROI converts 3x better than "just trust us." The 190k+ number is what actually closes trials.

- Comparison pages (propsbot-vs-oddsjam, propsbot-vs-propgpt, etc.) are our best SEO pages. Bettors comparison-shop aggressively — these pages meet them mid-decision.

- 50% lifetime affiliate matches the top of the market. Publishers currently paid less by competitors are starting to feature us.

Things I'd do differently:

1. Published the performance numbers earlier. I waited too long because I was scared of a cold start. The moment I went fully transparent — every prediction logged, every ROI number public — trust skyrocketed.

2. Skipped most AI-tool directories. Half of what I planned to submit to (Toolify, TAAFT, Futurepedia) eliminated their free tiers in 2025. Hours spent on submissions that couldn't happen. Niche sports-betting review sites converted 10x better.

3. Not launched on Product Hunt first. PH is great for SaaS but the sports betting audience isn't there. Reddit (r/sportsbook, r/algobetting) and sports-betting Twitter were where the real users lived.

What's hard:

- Sports betting is saturated with "picks" services that are hot garbage. Educating users that PropsBot is a research tool (not a picks service, not a tout) is an ongoing battle.

- The word "AI" has been nuked by ChatGPT wrappers. I spend surprising effort explaining "no, we actually use XGBoost and neural nets, here's the methodology page."

- Regulated space = extra friction. Some payment processors don't want to touch it. Some directories ban it outright. Some publishers won't feature gambling-adjacent products. You route around it, but it slows everything down.

Ask for the IH community:

If you've built in a regulated or skepticism-heavy space (gambling, finance, health), how did you handle the "everyone promises the moon" credibility problem? We lean on published numbers + transparency, but would love to hear other approaches.

And if you want to poke at the product: propsbot.ai — free trial, no card required. Happy to answer anything technical about the ML stack, the infra, or the marketing playbook.

Cheers,

David 🚀

posted toAvatar for product PropsBot.AI
PropsBot.AI
  1. 1
    Todd’s point about third-party validation is key. For building trust, I’ve been using a sabong livestream service that shows matches in real time, and it makes users much more comfortable with raw data and transparency. Their platform handles live streaming well and keeps things simple for both new and experienced bettors.
  2. 2
    Publishing your raw data and showing variance alongside ROI is huge for credibility. I'd start there to win over skeptical bettors.
    1. 0
      We already publish every result publicly, so the variance is there in the underlying data — including losing stretches and drawdowns. I do think there’s an opportunity to surface that more clearly though, with things like rolling ROI, weekly/monthly performance, and max drawdown so users don’t have to dig through the raw results themselves. -David
  3. 2

    This is strong. The transparency angle is doing the heavy lifting.

    In skepticism heavy spaces, verification beats explanation. You are already publishing results, but I would push further with third party validation. Independent tracking, public API access, or easy raw data exports all remove the need to trust you.

    Agree on comparison pages. That is exactly where high intent users are.

    Have you tested showing variance or drawdown alongside ROI? In betting, that often builds more trust than ROI alone.

    1. 1
      Totally agree that verification matters more than explanation in a space like this. We already publish every result, including the losses, so the variance and drawdowns are in the underlying data today. Where I think we can improve is surfacing that more clearly with things like rolling ROI, weekly/monthly performance, and max drawdown so users don’t have to dig through the full results history themselves. Third-party validation and easier raw data access are also things I’m interested in because the goal is to make the performance as inspectable as possible, not just ask people to trust a headline number. And yes, I agree on comparison pages too — those are definitely high-intent users. -David