General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
03 Apr 10
01:38
Joined:
Date Joined:
12 Mar 07
If the readily avaiable staitstical records on a particular market show very clearly and openly that a certain type of event occurs( say) 1/3 of the time and so should be priced at or close to 3.33, but you are quite regularly, but not always, offered the opportunity to lay it at ( say) 2.50 or thereabouts, should you jump in on it unreservedly ?
Or does it mean that perhaps the real inside knowledge experts on the event know something that you don't which is making the price on offer seem out of whack ?
That is , is it a real value opportunity to lay, or is it telling you that this particular match/event is one of those that the insiders think is going to be part of the winning group of 1/3rd. That is, the exact opposite situation to the apparent value wager.
Or does it mean that perhaps the real inside knowledge experts on the event know something that you don't which is making the price on offer seem out of whack ?
That is , is it a real value opportunity to lay, or is it telling you that this particular match/event is one of those that the insiders think is going to be part of the winning group of 1/3rd. That is, the exact opposite situation to the apparent value wager.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 16
|
By:
The answer to that is the key to life imo.
I think of it as a curve (People like Aye Robot will know much better than me) where if it's slightly out I'll bet on it, then as it moves further away from the price I'll bet on it more, then as it moves even further, I get more and more cautious and barely touch it, until it becomes so ridiculous that I bet on it anyway again. The chances of that being the correct approach are slim, but that's what my gut tells me to do. |
|
By:
You mean it's a version of the maxim that if it seems to good be true then it probably isn't. ?
|
|
By:
Right, except I add a bit in that when it goes completely too far then it's possible that so many people have "bet the** or whatever you want to term it, that there's a good enough chance that the original price move was just knowledge of an injury/team news/whatever and so many others have followed it on as to distort it beyond all sense (afterall, if you knew about an injury/teamnews/etc, you'd lump as much as you could on to the price that was about right again)
When it reaches a point that looks like that, I'm willing to take a chance again as it doesn't have to be simply a snowball very often for me to make from it. |
|
By:
Maybe a better analogy is that of a dog chasing it's tail ?
|
|
By:
FAFH, you are talking about statistical generalisations rather than ratings. This type of data can be applied to some markets but not to others e.g. Laying the draw in soccer as against laying a tennis player to win a 3 set match 2-1 (of course neither of them would have odds of 2.50 but it is just an example of two different bets that generalisations could be applied to).
|
|
By:
depends how good a judge you are
|
|
By:
Of course a basic assumption I'm making is that the market makers are not just a lazy group of sods, who haven't done their research properly and are just winging it.
In that' s not the case it would be real value and a genuine edge. Bleedin difficult ain't it just ? |
|
By:
Shiraz
I'm confused. Are you saying t can be used in soccer but not tennis, or the other way round ? |
|
By:
Or do you mean that those 2 markets are in fact both where statistical generalisations can be usefully applied ?
|
|
By:
bear in mind alot of the 'market makers' are not value seekers/bettors, but more people will the advantage of being able to close positions without being matched at out of date prices. most will have no view.
|
|
By:
Could you explain that a bit more to me ?
Sounds inteersting. |
|
By:
In soccer a team can draw and gain an advantage from it in the context of positions on the ladder etc. Therefore you can have an odds on favourite but the draw may be at say 3.60, you could also have a 2.20 favourite and the draw may still be 3.60. Statistcal generalisations are less applicable.
|
|
By:
So am I interpreting you correctly ?.
Are you basically saying that in football sometimes teams deliberately play for a certain outcome ( say a draw), but in tennis no player would or could really play for a deliberate 3 set win as opposed to a 2 set win ?. Am I getting your point if somewhat simplistically ? |
|
By:
Soccer example has the price of a draw influenced by other factors than just the ratings of the teams involved, so each match is more of an individual situation. A tennis match is clearer, if you win you go through to next round, if you lose, you're out.
|
|
By:
Makes good sense. Tks.
|
|
By:
The only other ingredient affecting the price of the draw is goal expectancy, but the variation is very small. In matches for instance, where the protagonists ae equal in the betting to win, the draw price will be either 9/4 or 23/10 and occasionally 12/5, the last price usually reflecting the goal expectancy.
|