Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I found this blog online regarding a betfair challenge. Essentially, this guy makes 3 trades/day all at 1.01. And he tried to compound it. I thought I would try it, seems interesting. Thoughts?
http://betfairchallenge24.blogspot.ca/
http://betfairchallenge24.blogspot.ca/
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 44
|
By:
Id guess without looking its your blog, one post and a link mmmmm
|
|
By:
It's 1.01 it's his blog alright
 ........ but in answer to the question , backing 1.01 blindly no you haven't a hope. If it's value then in the long term you may win.Compounding using your full bank is also disaster and the inevitable will definitely happen.. just ask yourself this , if it's that easy why isn't everybody else doing it??? No matter what the odds 100/1 or 1.01 if you aren't getting value then you ain't going to win long term |
|
By:
Yes it his my blog. I just wanted a place to document it and wasn't sure on the best method to approach the forum. Im curious why you say "A disaster will happen". With the early cash outs and what not, wouldn't that be preventable? Sure you might take some losses from time to time but overall, I don't really see how you could go bust. Unless of course, you get multiple bad trades back to back to back.
|
|
By:
It can not be done
|
|
By:
Firstly I would never rule out a run of bad trades. If you are trading out when the market goes against you then that certainly helps prolong your bank.
But using a full bank for any trade is a disaster waiting to happen. For example Burnley v Brighton live sunday morning. Brighton scored after a minute and the market was suspended. Before the market reopened , Burnley went up the other end and were awarded a peno. So straight away there was two goals and you "Full Bank " trade would have been decimated |
|
By:
Absolutely, I get your point. This is why i've incorporated certain "rules" within my trading. For example: I never take a game under 65', the initial score has to be either 0-0 or 1-0 and I always allow for minimum 3 outs (i.e. Under 4.5). If a game goes as you mentioned above, I would of cashed out as soon as the penalty shot was taken/ market available. As I mentioned, I just figured I would try this as a fun experiment. Either, way I find it interesting that we're judging that can't be done and I would love to find out the mathematics behind this statement. Any advice?
|
|
By:
The mathematics is pretty simple really. If you are backing 1/100 shots that should be 1/1000 you will be up long term. If you are not the best you can hope for is luck but that won't last long term. And there is absolutely nothing I can say positive about using a full bank for each trade , it's just simply crazy.
Having said that if it's just a hobby and you are doing it for interest etc then there is certainly no harm in it. But the simple facts are , if you are not getting value long term that you won't succeed. I'm not saying you can't succeed backing 1.01s but you are just aimlessly backing 3 of them every single day and expect to get to 2 million dollars ( I think that's what you said on your blog ) which is cloud cuckoo land stuff. Anyhow best of luck |
|
By:
I'm not blindly doing it, research does come into play of course. As for the 2 million $ I agree, its ludicrous but thats what the Math equals down to. Im not saying the expected outcomes will work out as planned simply that this is what the mathematics end up being.
|
|
By:
mc(nx1.01)/2 = It can not be done
|
|
By:
If you think it can be done record your bets here.
|
|
By:
Thats a great Idea. Will do.
|
|
By:
What are you lot talking about? This is guaranteed free munnies! 1.01 has never lost on Betfair in the 76 years it has been in operation.
|
|
By:
Of course its lost. Anyways I think I am getting side tracked here or my opinion as not expressed properly on my end. I said I was trying this for fun... Will it work? Probably not. But as dlarssonf mentioned; If it's for fun so whats the harm. Either way, I'll keep on going and will post my results. Its the numbers that interest me to be honest. Anyways Best wishes to everyone.
|
|
By:
Surely the figure of 2 million assumes 100% winning bets which is unrealistic. Have you tried building in scenarios where you lose some of the bets?
For example what happens if you build your bank up to, say, $200 and then lose 50%. You're back to square one. How many hits can you take before you're treading water or worse? |
|
By:
Thats a great question. At this time, my initial train of thought was to simply cash out if a game has no more "outs" and/or if a number of sudden things happen (back to back goals). Its hard to model it mathematically since the odds aren't very informative. What I mean by this is that just because a match or position has odds of 1.01 it doesn't mean that its 99%
|
|
By:
a 6 month sample for you (horse racing)
Number of horses traded at 1.01 7002 Number of winners at 1.01 6824 Number of losers at 1.01 178 |
|
By:
Where did you get that Data? Its a nice sample, different beast though.
|
|
By:
upaymyschool
I wouldn't think that anybody believes that 1.01 reflects the true odds of an event. For what's it's worth I don't think any odds (apart from probabilities of 0 and 1) reflect the true chances of an event but that's a different matter. If, as you say: "Its the numbers that interest me to be honest." then you need to model them. You'll need to be very good at stats and have a good computer! There's some clever people on here, and on other forums, it may pay to ask. I'd think you'd stand more chance on General Betting. Empirical evidence will prove very little as the sample size will be too small. It's a good mathematical problem but I doubt if it's a good betting proposition. But you never know and I wish you well. |
|
By:
Thanks Charlie, That's a good point. I will try anyways and see what happens. I'll post my results daily as well as the betting history.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Well thank you kind sir, praise indeed
 My missus says I've got fast fingers In fact she says I've a fast everything |
|
By:
On a slightly different note, although I think there is a connection. How many winners are you hoping to get in total? I ask because as far as I'm aware the world record for consecutive winning bets stands at 442. There were no trades in this run though, just mormal bets on a variation of sports, all placed on Betfair, some in play and nearly all were @ 1.01. The run and bets were 'proofed' as they were posted on another betting site/forum.
|
|
By:
It would have to be 1095 winners but as I mentioned; they don't have to be consecutive and if any match ends up having "no more outs", it will be cashed out for a loss.
|
|
By:
That's still a hell of a lot of winners.
|
|
By:
upaymyschool
Don't forget commission will screw you as well  .When are you starting? |
|
By:
I started 8 days ago. Results are posted daily on a little blog I set up but I will also post them in here as well. http://betfairchallenge24.blogspot.ca/
|
|
By:
"Allot of research goes into these trades. Its not simply picking three positions at random and hoping they work out."
 |
|
By:
so in 359 days you will have over 2 million dollars?
|
|
By:
No I doubt it will work. I am just trying it for fun and documenting it.
|
|
By:
Here were my 3 trades for the day (Nov 25th)
CSKA Moscow vs. Wolfsburg - Under 4.5 - 1.01 Arsenal Tula vs. Tomsk - Under 5.5 - 1.01 Baikal Irkutsk vs. Shnnik Under 5.5 - 1.01 |
|
By:
You need to post your running total as well. £100 start after 1 bet 100.1 etc.
|
|
By:
And time of bets.
|
|
By:
Sure thing. It was just a pain to type all of so I took a screen cap of history and put it on the blog as wel (http://betfairchallenge24.blogspot.ca/). But good call, I'll make sure to put everything in here as well:
Baikal Irkutsk vs. Shnnik Under 5.5 - 1.01 - 12:20:06- 88.78$ (USD) Arsenal Tula vs. Tomsk - Under 5.5 - 1.01 - 12:56:08 - 89.75 (USD) CSKA Moscow vs. Wolfsburg - Under 4.5 - 1.01 - 13:52:06 - 90.65$ (USD) |
|
By:
youve cracked the davinci code ;)
|
|
By:
watched with show on telly last night money talks vip las vegas is pretty cool
|
|
By:
"Allot of research goes into these trades. Its not simply picking three positions at random and hoping they work out."
What "research" went into the Arsenal Tula game? In their 5 matches prior to the one against Tomsk there was 21 goals! |
|
By:
OK so you need 1095 winners at 1.01 - lets imagine for a second that you are a real shrewdie and every bet you make really is at true odds of 1.01 (they wont all be though by any means as the horse racing figures given earlier show but lets imagine you were more shrewd than all the bookmakers/punters etc who help determine these odds) - if this were true then it is possible to calculate the odds that you make 1095 bets without a single winner (using A-Level maths). Is this what you really want to know? I think you are going to be disappointed. Its going to be a lot more unlikely to succeed than you think....
|
|
By:
I know its unlikely, that wasn't the argument. All I was saying is that I'm interested in trying it out. Will it work? Im 99.9% sure it won't but I would like to see how far I can take it. I've said this from the beginning. This is simply an experiment for me.
|