General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Lets say you have devised a method that gives a (reasonably) accurate guide to the true probabilities of an event, eg football/tennis/hockey/snooker etc. What then would be the best way to bet it?
Given that BF prices are also a reasonably accurate guide to the true probabilities do you:
a) Take the value option and back/lay the event on BF when their prices are out of line with yours by an agreed percentage or:
b) Back only when the BF price is equal or less than your price as that market is confirming the accuracy of your prediction method.
Of Course there is a (c) backing with a bookmaker when their price is out of line with both yours and BFs but this an event so rare opportunities are exceedingly few and far between.
I used to think I knew the answer to this but I'm not so sure now.
Would you go for answer (a) or (b) and why please?
Given that BF prices are also a reasonably accurate guide to the true probabilities do you:
a) Take the value option and back/lay the event on BF when their prices are out of line with yours by an agreed percentage or:
b) Back only when the BF price is equal or less than your price as that market is confirming the accuracy of your prediction method.
Of Course there is a (c) backing with a bookmaker when their price is out of line with both yours and BFs but this an event so rare opportunities are exceedingly few and far between.
I used to think I knew the answer to this but I'm not so sure now.
Would you go for answer (a) or (b) and why please?
Show More
a) ... because I 'have devised a method that gives a (reasonably) accurate guide to the true probabilities of an event'
A.Knutsen 10 Dec 13:10
a) ... because I 'have devised a method that gives a (reasonably) accurate guide to the true probabilities of an event'
Yes but so is the betting market. Isn't it better to wait until until both your method and the general consensus have come to the same conclusion independently?
a) ... because I 'have devised a method that gives a (reasonably) accurate guide to the true probabilities of an event'
Yes but so is the betting market. Isn't it better to wait until until both your method and the general consensus have come to the same conclusion independently?
betfair prices can be way out of line, betting on dogs or horses, prices can be very generous. still have to find the winners, only sure way of winning in long term. makes sense to increase your stakes when find value, in long term you should win.
Agree that market is not efficient for horses or dogs but am looking at markets with at best three outcomes- win/lose or win/lose/draw.
Yes but so is the betting market. Isn't it better to wait until until both your method and the general consensus have come to the same conclusion independently?
If the market accurately reflects the probability of the outcome you're betting on then the bet isn't value (back or lay). The market must be wrong for you to make money.
If the market accurately reflects the probability of the outcome you're betting on then the bet isn't value (back or lay). The market must be wrong for you to make money.
Kelly (zzzzzzzzzzzzz) is the optimal way. You'd want to calculate your ranges and see how confident you were.
and not just a bit wrong, wrong enough to claw back your commission ...
The commision should always be taken into account with "effective" odds.
Thats my gripe about the PC. You need to make decisions on What Is My Actual Profit If This Bet Wins. Which now you just don't know!
Thats my gripe about the PC. You need to make decisions on What Is My Actual Profit If This Bet Wins. Which now you just don't know!
Well you won't incur the PC unless you're well into a decent long term profit anyway so I wouldn't worry about it.
Worth throwing in a gripe about the PC for sh1ts and giggles though. Nice one.
Worth throwing in a gripe about the PC for sh1ts and giggles though. Nice one.
So the general consensus (3) is that the value route should be followed.
So if you derived a method that gave a 33% strike rate-should you then back at 3.0 (2/1) and thereby guarantee a profit?
The problem is: maybe if you analysed this method and found all your successful bets were at less than 3.0, (other than skint) where would this leave you?
So if you derived a method that gave a 33% strike rate-should you then back at 3.0 (2/1) and thereby guarantee a profit?
The problem is: maybe if you analysed this method and found all your successful bets were at less than 3.0, (other than skint) where would this leave you?
If you are good at knowing what the price should be wtf would you back at that price or lower???
Might as well set your money on fire
Might as well set your money on fire
If you are identifying value prices you do not have a 'prediction method' , only a method of determining probablities. :)
tobermory 11 Dec 22:24
If you are good at knowing what the price should be wtf would you back at that price or lower???
The price is not the probability is it? If you have a method that gives a success rate of say 40% all you can say is that over your sample the desired result was achieved 40% of the time. That is the probability of success.
You have to look at the individual prices of the events that make up the sample. If most of the prices of the successful events are above 2.5 you are quids in and can then back your method when the price is higher than 2.5. If most of the successful events were priced under 2.5 you can still be quids in, but only if you are aware of this and dont back at the higher (losing) prices.
Geddit?
If you are good at knowing what the price should be wtf would you back at that price or lower???
The price is not the probability is it? If you have a method that gives a success rate of say 40% all you can say is that over your sample the desired result was achieved 40% of the time. That is the probability of success.
You have to look at the individual prices of the events that make up the sample. If most of the prices of the successful events are above 2.5 you are quids in and can then back your method when the price is higher than 2.5. If most of the successful events were priced under 2.5 you can still be quids in, but only if you are aware of this and dont back at the higher (losing) prices.
Geddit?
If you're only backing over a certain price then your overall strike rate (including the ones you aren't backing) is totally irrelevant. If you've found a way to predict good value then not sure why you'd want to have a minimum price anyway..
^ Indeed
The probability is the price.(if you are accurate at pricing).
I don't get what your saying at all tbh.
You say 'if you have devised a method with a 33% strike rate you can ensure profit by backing above 2/1 '
But that is not how pricing up and backing value works . It's true that if the average price you back at is 2/1 you will want a 33.33% strike rate to break even . But you would back a 6/4 if you priced it at EVS or a 10/1 if you thought it should be 7/1 .You certainly wouldn't back a 2/1 if you thought the price should be 2/1.
The price available determines wether or not its worth betting on, but it should never determine what your price should be (unless in the case of some very dubious price move , where its best to leave it alone anyway).
The probability is the price.(if you are accurate at pricing).
I don't get what your saying at all tbh.
You say 'if you have devised a method with a 33% strike rate you can ensure profit by backing above 2/1 '
But that is not how pricing up and backing value works . It's true that if the average price you back at is 2/1 you will want a 33.33% strike rate to break even . But you would back a 6/4 if you priced it at EVS or a 10/1 if you thought it should be 7/1 .You certainly wouldn't back a 2/1 if you thought the price should be 2/1.
The price available determines wether or not its worth betting on, but it should never determine what your price should be (unless in the case of some very dubious price move , where its best to leave it alone anyway).
OK, lets suppose your method gives you a 40% strike rate over a very large sample, large enough to be certain after doing various statistical tests. Do you simply back all selections at better than 2.5 and thereby make a profit? Most people would say that this is the way to go.
However, what if you looked at this sample and discovered that this successful 40% was made up almost entirely of prices under 2.5. Would you still back at the "value" prices of better than 2.5?
However, what if you looked at this sample and discovered that this successful 40% was made up almost entirely of prices under 2.5. Would you still back at the "value" prices of better than 2.5?
Seems to me that you have little idea of probability and value for an individual event but from a large sample you have stumbled on a profitable overall method. If the profit was all in the lower odds range then you are most likely making value individual bets in that range whilst you may not be in the higher range. I think you are saying if the market forced the price from 3 to 2.5 it would have a higher chance of success because the market felt this way. However, if you had your own tissue which identified your price as 2 then the bet at 3 has surely got to be better?
Given that BF prices are also a reasonably accurate guide to the true probabilities do you:
I would question that, on many occasions, especially near the kick off.
I would question that, on many occasions, especially near the kick off.
Hi Dogawalker, hope you don't mind me copying/pasting - my opinion below..
OK, lets suppose your method gives you a 40% strike rate over a very large sample, large enough to be certain after doing various statistical tests. Do you simply back all selections at better than 2.5 and thereby make a profit? Most people would say that this is the way to go.
No because your strike rate will drop when you don't include the ones under 2.5 that you decided not to back.
However, what if you looked at this sample and discovered that this successful 40% was made up almost entirely of prices under 2.5.
Would you still back at the "value" prices of better than 2.5
If you're suggesting that ALL of the prices over 2.5 WILL be value - i believe you are mistaken.
If you're suggesting you should only back the ones over 2.5 with value then yes you're right (but you should also back the ones under 2.5 that are value!)
OK, lets suppose your method gives you a 40% strike rate over a very large sample, large enough to be certain after doing various statistical tests. Do you simply back all selections at better than 2.5 and thereby make a profit? Most people would say that this is the way to go.
No because your strike rate will drop when you don't include the ones under 2.5 that you decided not to back.
However, what if you looked at this sample and discovered that this successful 40% was made up almost entirely of prices under 2.5.
Would you still back at the "value" prices of better than 2.5
If you're suggesting that ALL of the prices over 2.5 WILL be value - i believe you are mistaken.
If you're suggesting you should only back the ones over 2.5 with value then yes you're right (but you should also back the ones under 2.5 that are value!)
If you think the market is always right, you are thinking the completely wrong way to make money.
You have to genuinely believe the market is full of mugs as your starting point but accept that they get it right sometimes, and so only play when they get it wrong.
Some examples in last few weeks
1. OLLY MURS 7/4 fav on here for X FACTOR 6 weeks ago - never finished ahead of Joe in any show... Annhilated.
2. PASCO 11/10 jt fav with Cornas on Thursday at Exeter despite having a lower level of form and having it on flat tracks, while the Ian Williams horse had his ideal conditions...Annhilated.
3. MAN UTD 4/7 fav away to Fulham today despite having NO defenders at all available in their squad and having lost 2 of their last 3, playing a side in form and rock solid at home...Annhilated
You have to genuinely believe the market is full of mugs as your starting point but accept that they get it right sometimes, and so only play when they get it wrong.
Some examples in last few weeks
1. OLLY MURS 7/4 fav on here for X FACTOR 6 weeks ago - never finished ahead of Joe in any show... Annhilated.
2. PASCO 11/10 jt fav with Cornas on Thursday at Exeter despite having a lower level of form and having it on flat tracks, while the Ian Williams horse had his ideal conditions...Annhilated.
3. MAN UTD 4/7 fav away to Fulham today despite having NO defenders at all available in their squad and having lost 2 of their last 3, playing a side in form and rock solid at home...Annhilated
completely agree with lozzy, gaining an edge and therefore value is having an opinion which contradicts what the market is telling you, for eg. imperial commander was a perfect example recently at haydock, one of the general consensus was that he always showed his best form at cheltenham, so the market reflected that. if you were of the opinion that it may appear that way because the majority of his runs have been at cheltenham you could have come to the conclusion that he was value for the haydock race. where he 'suprised' people by just losing out the k.star - he only surprised people who believed needed to be at prestbury park to run like that!!
I can't see, OP, why (2) would ever be a sensible course of action - unless I have misread it.
If you make something evens, and betfair makes it 1.95, you would back it - for what reason? How do you expect to make long term profit following this sort of action?
The markets are loosely efficient. Let's not pretend to ourselves that at every point they are totally efficient and provide the correct probabilities of an event. Otherwise how does a favourite start at 1.5 and drift to 1.8 and have an SP of 1.65 and the market be correct at all points? It might be fair to say its more efficient at the off than at the other times, but it doesn't get it spot on every time.
If your methodology is good enough (and you are aware of reasons why prices might sometimes be outside of your spread which you have not accounted for - e.g. non-triers in racing or teams decimated by injuries in football, etc), then 1) is the course of action you should be following.
If you make something evens, and betfair makes it 1.95, you would back it - for what reason? How do you expect to make long term profit following this sort of action?
The markets are loosely efficient. Let's not pretend to ourselves that at every point they are totally efficient and provide the correct probabilities of an event. Otherwise how does a favourite start at 1.5 and drift to 1.8 and have an SP of 1.65 and the market be correct at all points? It might be fair to say its more efficient at the off than at the other times, but it doesn't get it spot on every time.
If your methodology is good enough (and you are aware of reasons why prices might sometimes be outside of your spread which you have not accounted for - e.g. non-triers in racing or teams decimated by injuries in football, etc), then 1) is the course of action you should be following.
There are enough occasions where the market is completely wrong to make serious money on here. It is usually the overemphasis or ignorance of one or more factors.
Nick Mordin explains them brilliantly as the 'Seven Deadly Sins of punters' in his book on betting systems.
The way I see it, betting markets have the same weaknesses as democracy. It is an unhappy medium that will always miss out something that is crucial.
Nick Mordin explains them brilliantly as the 'Seven Deadly Sins of punters' in his book on betting systems.
The way I see it, betting markets have the same weaknesses as democracy. It is an unhappy medium that will always miss out something that is crucial.
I really don't buy into this 'efficient market' hypothesis. With all information in the public domain different people still draw different conclusions. FFS, even I draw different conclusions depending on time of day or state of intoxication! The markets are measures of opinion, nothing more.
fgs, don't follow the consensus as a general rule. Make up your own mind after having done your homework. The market can be wrong, even on football.
DaveEdwards 21 Dec 19:18
fgs, don't follow the consensus as a general rule. Make up your own mind after having done your homework. The market can be wrong, even on football.
DaveEdwards, what do you mean by that ? That the favourite doesn't always win ??
fgs, don't follow the consensus as a general rule. Make up your own mind after having done your homework. The market can be wrong, even on football.
DaveEdwards, what do you mean by that ? That the favourite doesn't always win ??
I think he means that sometimes the market just makes the prices wrong.
Take Fulham last week at home to Man U. They were 5/1. Normally that would be about right, but with Man U's defensive injuries the true odds were a lot shorter. I thought maybe 5/2 at the time, and in hindsight after a 3-0 win perhaps even that would have been overpriced.
Take Fulham last week at home to Man U. They were 5/1. Normally that would be about right, but with Man U's defensive injuries the true odds were a lot shorter. I thought maybe 5/2 at the time, and in hindsight after a 3-0 win perhaps even that would have been overpriced.
ManU did drift against Fulham but became very solid around the 1.80 mark from memory. Anyone who thought that 1.80 was too short was being opposed so the concensus of opinion was that 1.80 was the 'right' price. The result means nothing, as things should be judged on 'how they bet' and not 'how they finish'. I thought 1.80 was about right in the circumstances.
Imo if they played again tomorrow with same teams - i wouldn't back fulham at 5/2 and i would be tempted by man u at 1.8.
'Hindsight' on the 'true odds' is obviously a no-brainer.
'Hindsight' on the 'true odds' is obviously a no-brainer.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539