Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Is it possible?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 17
|
By:
doubt it when one loss wipes out 33 wins
|
|
By:
very unlikely. i think the easiest way to build a bank is better on decent odds 1.5 minimum
|
|
By:
even then fairly impossible. what happens when you lose? martingale?
|
|
By:
i once turned 8k into 20k in a few months. just by winning bets. my biggest stake was probably only about £1,000.
this tournament if youd bet on over 1.5 youd have won every time. 13 out of 13. though not very good odds. but even over 2.5 youd be miles in profit. i wouldnt do anything special to build up a bank, if you win bets your bank builds up if you dont it wont. i wouldnt go down the increasing stakes route. first thing is to bet on things that win, let the rest sort itself out. |
|
By:
first thing is to bet on things that win
inspirational stuff |
|
By:
I doubled my bank backing low odds (mostly under 1.07) in 1 month... Just wanted to know if someone had the same luck (strategy) as myself...
|
|
By:
I don't know enough about football to comment specifically on that but I guess once you understand the market,
it's the same as everything else! Backing short prices is the same as laying long ones and after one loss you are so far behind that you would have to be mental and have an enormous bank to use an aggressive recovery system! The very first time I decided to try laying high odds horses, I lost at 95s and that was in a long field! Fortunately I am a cautious operator and I was laying to liability staking. Also I have my total bank split into three and my starting stakes are no more than 0.5% of the operating bank. My forte is in laying, in running Horse Racing, where I open at low odds on, and green up where possible, using a custom programme. If I was working on something like you, I would use a third of my bank, and if I took a hit I would just take it on the chin, and soldier on to see if I get back in profit. If I took a second hit I would be going back to the drawing board! You could try a very modest recovery like say 15% x 3 bets over 2 cycles, but just remember that even 1.01s get turned over, somewhere, pretty much every day! You could try D'alembert staking which is on these lines...... The plan is simple: after a loss, increase your stake by one unit. Decrease your stake by one unit after a win. The aim is to end up at the start of the sequence each time, after making a profit of at least one unit. . http://stakingplan.com.au/dalembert-staking-plan/ |
|
By:
To answer the question " Is it possible "...........yes it is , but you could also say the same about backing at odds of 2 , or 3 , or 10 etc.
The trick is really to get more winners than the odds you back at say you should get. As pointed out below , 1 loss in 33 bets at odds of 1.03 will wipe out previous winnings. This is an occupational hazard of gambling, however I would maintain that having the mental strength to survive this when backing at very low odds is a very pertinent key strength. I personally dont back at these odds, I find it much easier backing the at 4s and over etc.....I am also a fan of dutching. The same principals of staking apply though.....ie never expose yourself for a significant % of your bank, the lower the better even if this does mean smallish stakes on each position. Its a marathon, not a sprint........ |
|
By:
The problem with the above posters comments is he has the word ''Tree'' in his name. On the Betfair forum, that's akin to have the surname ''Hitler'' in normal society.
|
|
By:
Why on earth is it impossible? If it was impossible there would be no liquidity at low odds...and yet, there is massive liquidity. Some are willing to, a small % of those people are probably doing quite well out of it.
I'm interested if anyone has successfully used this technique: 1) Offer a lay of 1.01 on any market as soon as it opens. Hence, you are first in the queue. Make sure your bet runs in play. 2) YouYou will get the first idiots who to back at 1.01. Because they are the first to take it, they are, on average, not getting a value bet, so your bet is value 3) profit, either by trade out or just letting the 1.01s run until you hit the jackpot (which you could have done several already at wimbledon) |
|
By:
I suppose people write programs which do that ^ kind of thing.
|
|
By:
Not pre game... In play
88' 1-0; -2.5 @ 1.02. Seems a winning bet in 99% of the time... You just heave to pick the correct game to avoid this 1% imo |
|
By:
1) Offer a lay of 1.01 on any market as soon as it opens. Hence, you are first in the queue. Make sure your bet runs in play.
2) YouYou will get the first idiots who to back at 1.01. Because they are the first to take it, they are, on average, not getting a value bet, so your bet is value 3) profit, either by trade out or just letting the 1.01s run until you hit the jackpot (which you could have done several already at wimbledon) -------- good thinking in some situations, which is why it's pretty much a cornered market. but what about situations where eg a team is 1.03 with 5 minutes left, then score again? your 1.01 keep bet is blinding value for whoever gets it first. personally I don't understand why people persist in fetishing particular prices. they're all essentially the same - representations of a percentage chance. the only exceptions to that are 1.01 and 1000, because there is nothing above or below them. |
|
By:
tistator, two goals in the last 2 minutes plus average 3 minutes injury time isnt that uncommon
|
|
By:
Sure, that's why you have to pick the match wisely...eg. No icelandic games, no knockout phase games, no friendly match, etc.
Also always watch the game you get involved to feel the mood of both teams...That's my opinion. I know people backing U6.5 pre game at 1.01/1.02 (there's even a thread about it here), as songsforthedeaf said "no value bet" imo  |
|
By:
I'd say it's possible to build your bank, yes.
But when do you stop the build? If you keep building, you'll crash eventually. If you stop, then it was just another fun challenge that gained you a few bob but has no long term use. The problem with the whole shebang is that selecting certain bets in a variety of markets at very short prices has no inherent value. You have no edge. And the only thing that is of any serious use in building a sustainable bank is value. |
|
By:
The problem with the above posters comments is he has the word ''Tree'' in his name. On the Betfair forum, that's akin to have the surname ''Hitler'' in normal society.
 Post of the year contender |