Value-betting

mr smythe, when you say 'compiling books', do you mean pricing up each match ? If so, I do that also, invariably (90%) finish up with prices very close to professional compilers, that is, those employed by bookmakers. When I do differ a lot, I try to find out why the diff as I don't rate myself better than them. Sometimes I take into consideration a factor they may have overlooked,therefore the difference. You need to comfortable with your own ability, and stay objective, don't have 'fancies' or 'gut feelings' if possible.
Staking: I don't like staking plans as I believe you finish up betting on the sequence of results rather than the actual results, but thats my choice. GL.

thanks Kenilworth for your views.
Do you keep your stakes fixed whether it be stake or liability then?

Mr Symthe,

If you're pricing up all 3 outcomes you'll have 3 prices that each outcome "should" be in your view.

Any current prices that are currently shorter, its a lay, any that are longer are a back. If you're using a Kelly method, it doesnt matter which "side" of the risking you are operating on, it simply means you have to inverse the calculations where necessary. In other words, theres no need to specify "lay kelly" whatsoever. its simply "kelly." :)

If you're finding value on more then one selection, then technically, you should be placing bets on all of them accordingly. However, if you want to simply take the "juiciest" part, calculate the expected growth of each one and simply place the bet that has the highest (if your intention is to grow your bank at the fastest possible rate, which Kelly assumes to be the case.)

Staking: I don't like staking plans as I believe you finish up betting on the sequence of results rather than the actual results, but thats my choice

This is just straight up wrong. The order of the results doesn't matter at all with Kelly (as you know, since I've given you the link before to the maths)

When b = 1, the Kelly bettor bets 2p - 1 times initial wealth, W, as shown above. If she wins, she has 2pW. If she loses, she has 2(1 - p)W. Suppose she makes N bets like this, and wins K of them. The order of the wins and losses doesn't matter, she will have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

Mr smythe,

There are ways to calculate how much you should bet if you have related bets going at the same time, but to be on the safe side you should probably not have more liability than your best bet of the two allows in total.
You should also lower stakes if you have more than one bet going at the same time to account for the fact that you don't know the size of your bankroll.

For exact numbers you should probably consult google.

hard maths makes my brain hurt

:(

mr smythe, I bet roughly to get the same return whether backing or laying, though I don't lay very often. When I say 'same return' I mean a fixed figure such as perhaps 10, which means if I backed a 1/1 chance the stake would be 5, if a 6/4 chance the stake would be 4 and so on.

lori, I didn't mention 'Kelly' the staking system you seem to have a fixation about, I was referring to progressive and regressive staking plans, in case you are unaware of any other staking besides 'Kelly'.

Ken,

You always bet to win a set amount?

In my experience, both 'live' betting and running paper betting alongside it, that method always does worse for me then kelly fractional betting or even just flat stakes.

If that works for you, keep it up but Im genuinely curious as to the diferrence why :)

JPG, it's from racecourse betting or 'dutching' that is backing perhaps two or more outcomes in a race to return a figure of 100. Say backing 3 in a race at perhaps 3/1, 4/1 and 9/1, staking would be 25, 20 and 10 (total 55) to return 100 whatever wins.

thanks for your advice guys, much apprecated.

My experiences have led me to the JPG side of level stakes than the Ken side - I've found its always been easier to get value at longer prices, and my ROI at those prices is much better, so I have forced myself into level stakes even on bets that are "unlikely to win".

Treble, sometimes I bet levels on different prices, especially when opposing an odds on shot, backing the other two options to levels.
Staking is not something I don't get hung up on, except for progressive stakes influenced by previous results etc. It's a personal choice with nothing carved in stone as far as I am concerned with the pick and the price is more important than the stake as far as I am concerned.

I agree Ken, far too much time spent talking about staking. I've seen mathematical proofs that Kelly is the superior system, but for me it falls down at the stage where you need to know the exact price to then work out your stake. For me its a case of "is it value yes/no" and if its yes, its a bet, level stakes.

If you don't have an opinion, then how can you know where value is?

From last few posts it looks like you are not talking about horse race bets....but lazy football bets ]:)

LEVEL STAKING = No opinion IMO ]:)

thanks for the comments.
I know my prices are way out as I'm finding value (from my prices) in almost every game, from the 11 in-play games today I am betting on 10 of those which I know is way too many but my strike rate is good.
I think I put too much emphasis on recent form when calculating my prices.

Recent form has to be taken into consideration but only as part of the big picture. Good sides don't become bad sides because of perhaps 4 games without winning etc. GL

mr smythe, having admitted that you don't think your edge is accurate, applying any form of Kelly (full or fractional) has the potential to be disastrous. Its often repeated that if your odds can't produce a profit betting at level stakes then any form of increased staking will only multiply your loss. Whilst this is perhaps not strictly true, before you can quantify any edge you may have and any value you may find sticking to level stakes can not be a bad thing.

Other than that I hope things have been going well for you recently and good luck with your venture into the football markets.

Level stakes can be ok but as a very small percentage of bank. If you frequently bet on longer shots too, level stakes can be disastrous to your bank and is very risky especially when the real price can never truly be determined.

scrooge, what sort of staking do you think should be used for big priced picks ?

I am reading the staking advice from this link at the moment http://www.rsbweb.com/IE/IE_index.htm (click on learn, then book and staking plan and then staking plans) and need to test the formula it suggests. It shouldnt matter long term if you are staking the same on longer shots but your bank can diminish very quickly if you have long losing runs and frequently bet on big outsiders, so need to bet a tiny percentage of your initial bank for your level stake.

Up til now I have tried 3 methods:

1) Level Stakes
2) % of level stake based on odds
3) Same percentage of new bank each time (rubbish!)

Level stakes appears best so far but still need to read the link I posted properly. I have a feeling level stakes will always be best for me because I will almost certainly never hit 10+ losers in a row with my selections anyway. I am also finding increasing the level stake by 1 unit after a loss very beneficial - sort of less risky martingale!

If anyone else has any thoughts/experiences to share it would be good to hear.

scrooge, IMO only small level stakes should be used for big prices as losing runs of 50 plus can occur for double digit prices I can assure you of that. GL.

YUP ....but if you have an "edge" the long losing runs are not so long........

scrooge_mcduck

The link you refered to yesterday was I think one I posted on one of DFCs threads.

Re. the staking plan, I came across an old spreadsheet that I constructed a few years ago to do the various calculations which you can view at........

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AjriKHhwpRQQdGs1RjhEdzB6cWNwaUIySUxqLXFEelE&hl=en

It may give you some ideas. By the way, there's no significance in the figures, they're purely for illustration purposes.

An "edge" is a will-of-the wisp DCF. It's like trying to step on your shadow - just as you think you think you've got "it," it disappears.


Ever hear anyone say that they're bad drivers? Or that they are poor lovers? Wouldn't think that anybody on here doesn't harbour secretly the idea that they may too have an "edge." Even if they do, if that's true of everyone then no-one has an "edge".

Ones without edge are mainly punters backing LEVEL STAKES ]:)

I suspect many who do LEVEL STAKES are football punters............where in match market only 3 options....so margin re value not so wide as with horse racing etc.........

I've heard many on here slate level staking, fixed liabilities etc. but what else can be used if you can't put an accurate figure to the value you are finding.
If I price up a football match for example and find some value, I have my own price and the market price so I can use 'kelly' to calculate a suitable stake according to the amount of value found.
That's fair enough but what if your method works around a decent strike rate, you are producing profits long-term and therefore have an edge and are finding value in your bets but don't know the exact figures. The punter follows a method of simply backing/laying selections, what staking plan is suitable then?

......or is there no such thing as producing a profit without calculating prices first (apart from skilled trading)?

mr smythe - As I indicated above LEVEL STAKES is what football punters do mostly......"value" being fairly minimal compared to getting 12-1 winner in horse race .

How do you know you have VALUE in football match if you don't weigh up odds and factors that could effect outcome etc........???????

If you have a horse race where the fav is odds on....and you believe factors favour a 10-1 BF odds one...............surely you gotta play your edge, based on knowledge of key factors . IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE AN EDGE, THEN you are just playing to luck IMO.....so you will just be a level stakes player maybe??????

Even in football matches I am certain there are some top punters who do use KELLY.....but they will have to be good at estimating probability of winning bet......

Anyway ....GL with bets.......it is just I get fed up of those who keep advocating the lazy/ no opinion way to STAKE!

or is there no such thing as producing a profit without calculating prices first

If you mean making a profit with no regard to prices, then I don't think it's possible, although I expect I will be told I am wrong. To win, I believe you need to betting at prices which are better than the percieved chance of winning. Finding those bets is something else, but I feel you need to know something others don't know, for example last evening the best price Juventus with the books was 4/7, the spreads the equivelent of 1.60, yet on the price prekickoff almost touched 2.0. I couldn't see why so IMO this was a good value bet at anything from 1.80 upwards. Think price. If the price didn't matter, we would just have to bet all the short ones but they don't always win.
Regards staking, I am quite relaxed about that and bet according to price as I may have posted on such in an earlier post.

It's not possible to produce profits from simply using a system that requires you to just back selections irrelevant of the price.
You have to take all factors into account, whatever the event and then analyse the prices available, if your analysis indicates that the prices are wrong then place your bet, if not then leave well alone.
Whether you're roughly pricing up or putting an exact figure to your calculations as long as the odds are in your favour you will profit long term.
You're not going to have perfect ratings from the start, you have to put in the time and hard work and eventually this will pay off.
Successful traders are finding value, some will find the value first in the prices and some will find value trades using poor prices, all boils down to profit and losses.
Poker also is all about value, you can mathematically calculate exact odds. If there is £100 in the pot and you have to put in £10 to continue then you're getting 10/1 for your money, if you've got a decent hand and your chances of winning the game are 4/1 (easy to work out) then you call/raise as you are in effect placing a value bet. If the chances of you hitting the cards you want are more than 10/1 then you fold as that is poor value.
Anyway gl, sorry to waffle on so mucch...

Thanks Ken/jeskie for your comments.

I may look into playing poker with all the deals around at the moment with there being so much competition, I also like the fact you can calculate the exact odds as you say, so you definetely know whether you are getting value or not. Thanks for that.

Ken...
It's something I have always been unsure about. I know that it's all about the prices you take but that's the same for knowing the value before the bet or producing a strike rate that makes the prices value. (if that makes sense).
I don't want to turn this thread into 'would you take a winning bet or a value bet' but that's the road I seem to be taking it down.
If you're making a profit long term you are finding value in the prices that's for sure.

One thing I could add. If your price is different from general opinion then either they are wrong or you are wrong. It is worth having a second look as to why the diff, and only bet if they are wrong and you can see why they are wrong. :)

You have to find value before placing your bet.
If you're producing a profit without looking at the prices then you must be the luckiest person in the world as this is just predicting and nobody can predict the future.
In saying that, I can predict the future for somebody betting with no regard for the price or value......they will not make any profit long-term.

Mr Smythe, you can't [b]take[/b] a winning bet, but you may be able to make a value bet, which should, if you are right, finish up with you in front.

Thanks for the spread sheet top2rated!

I wanted to use one so I could remain disciplined an didn't have to think too hard to know how much to stake.

However, I think most people find value without realising it and you don't have to know the exact price. Most people bet on a scenario because they think it's a cert i.e. 100% therefore being value by default and very their stake depending on confidence. I think its more the chasing that screws people over.

You'd have to be a brave man or have both a massive bank and a huge amount of historical data to usee kelly on sports betting when true prices can never be known and your method of calculation is hard to keep consistent. Also one bet doesn't influence another and if you bet on 100 100/1 shots you could quite easily get no winners as each individual race could be one of those 99 tiems for that horse and those conditions. Value and price predicting can really over-complicate things and my head hurts from testing so many systems! :(

ttt.
(good thread, good read.)