General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
02 May 10
11:22
Joined:
Date Joined:
29 Apr 06
Where there is money, there's muck.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 43
|
By:
Hansie Cronje may possibly suggest that being unaware of the risk in all sports would be unwise.
|
|
By:
No danger if you know the man !
|
|
By:
Couldnt agree more, whilst obviously happens in Football/Rugby etc, far easier in Boxing/Snooker/Tennis/Darts events :(
|
|
By:
As long as you don't know what the outcome is and you've modelled accordingly, what's the danger?
|
|
By:
Because your models are meaningless if the game is rigged?
|
|
By:
Not at all, assuming that your models were created from the correct number of rigged games.
If the sport suddenly develops a higher than usual number of these, then I could see your point. |
|
By:
assuming that your models were created from the correct number of rigged games
You'd have to possess a very good imagination to justify a model based on invalid data. Careful, Lori, you're beginning to sound like a politician! |
|
By:
Lori .. A v B the odds are rubbish .. bit like heads or tails red or black ... you cannot win .. forget fixed .. its all about odds .....
|
|
By:
I back horses and lay horse between 3/1 and 12/1.. why the odds are on my side zzzzzzzzz
|
|
By:
If I know that player A beats player B 57% of the time, surely it's meaningless how that 57% is arrived at?
I will concede it could lead to overstaking if one or both of the players are taking advantage of their knowledge to the degree that the market moves. That should be part of any model anyway though. It will also be invalid if one player suddenly changes their patterns and participates in more dodgy matches than they normally would. Again this should be picked up both in the area of "loss of form" and in the area of "Hmm, those odds look strange" though. People try to make this game a lot more difficult than it is. Just boil it down to numbers and keep an eye out for anomolies, that's all it's really about. |
|
By:
People try to make this game a lot more difficult than it is. Just boil it down to numbers and keep an eye out for anomolies, that's all it's really about.
Spot on. May I commend the Moto GP. There are some extemely good looking wimmin on the grid? |
|
By:
The Betfairy 02 May 12:20
Because your models are meaningless if the game is rigged? Lori 02 May 12:36 Not at all, assuming that your models were created from the correct number of rigged games. If the sport suddenly develops a higher than usual number of these, then I could see your point. Betfairy's right. What it means, though, is that it is often very easy to spot the rigged games, because the divergence, in the in-play odds, from the model is so blatant. |
|
By:
Betfairy's right. What it means, though, is that it is often very easy to spot the rigged games, because the divergence, in the in-play odds, from the model is so blatant.
It is rare for me to agree with so many people but I am doing it again. If you want to practice this technique then cut your teeth by doing some football manager markets. ;) |
|
By:
If I know a coin comes down Heads 50% of the time whenever the price is 2.06, does it matter how it got there as long as the same principles apply and the game hasn't changed?
If it's tossed fairly 80% of the time, placed on Heads 10% of the time and placed on Tails 10% of the time that the price is 2.06, my model would make me a profit even if sometimes I have a zero percent chance of winning, because sometimes I have a 100% chance of winning as well to cover that. The problem arises if you use your model for games that are 2.06 and think it always applies when the price is 2.32. |
|
By:
See if you can find that fred for the alleged Daveydenko dodgy game that betfair voided.
It was a shame they voided it really as something was clearly wrong and although Daveydenko was never found guilty I don't recall betfair reversing their view and having been paid out. |
|
By:
Oh, if we're saying that these things happen, they happen all the time. Yes.
|
|
By:
Lori 02 May 14:02
Oh, if we're saying that these things happen, they happen all the time. Yes. Me? I used to do horses and can only guess at the percentage of non triers. But it was more than I expected but it became less so and I stopped looking at them as I became less able to spot them. But when you say "all the time" then I think that requires defining. If we are talking about inside information on rumour based markets then I reckon about 80% can be spotted. I believe that there is a law against that in the UK is there not? |
|
By:
Reading the tennis forum on a regular basis will give you better answers than I'm going to.
|
|
By:
Lori 02 May 14:08 Reading the tennis forum on a regular basis will give you better answers than I'm going to. Where are you going with this? Are you referring to natural losers just blaming their loses on a** There are many of those. |
|
By:
How can you model for it?
Some players may be more persuadable than others, but how can we know which? We can have an idea of their form and ability, but not of anything else. |
|
By:
askari1 02 May 15:02 How can you model for it? I do that maths every day I work at this. Yes you can. |
|
By:
Lori 02 May 12:45
If I know that player A beats player B 57% of the time, surely it's meaningless how that 57% is arrived at? It matters a great deal. Say I price up 100 events and just one of them is rigged. I put up odds on all the different sub markets and am used to getting about 10% of the money I put up matched. If a game turns out to be rigged, all my money will get matched on certain selections and I'll lose an amount that is disproportional to what I usually win. I can't really see how it's possible to argue with this. Say we decide to play a game repeatedly where I bet you even money, but you have a 60% chance of winning each game on average. However once every 10 games I have a 90% chance, and I know when this occurs. Obviously, if I am free to increase stakes at this time, I'll clean you out. What you say may apply with level staking and taking odds rather than offering them, if the match fixing is taken into account prior to betting. But if you're pricing up yourself you have the problem that you're far more likely to get matched if you're 'wrong' (in this case because of a** than when you're right. |
|
By:
Agree that if you're blindly laying then you'll get punished. I'm assuming backing in a liquid market fwiw.
|
|
By:
Lori 02 May 15:30 Agree that if you're blindly laying then you'll get punished. I'm assuming backing in a liquid market fwiw. You surprise me. |
|
By:
This back or to lay issue is down to maffs innit Lori?
|
|
By:
More specifically "Leaving up orders" would get punished.
Bloomin' pedantic (correctly) lot you are :) |
|
By:
Lori 02 May 15:41 More specifically "Leaving up orders" would get punished. Bloomin' pedantic (correctly) lot you are sorry, I guess it is how smart you orders are. |
|
By:
I am not trying to be pedantic.
Maybe this is a conversation we ought to continue with less people looking in? |
|
By:
It's certainly not helping matters being on a public forum izzit?
|
|
By:
No, innit.
|
|
By:
Match fixing adds another layer of unpredictability. Over time you can learn to spot the anomalies in advance, however I've seen it happen that the dody betting didn't start until half time.
If you were betting blindly in a liquid market, the fact that a game is fixed would make no difference to you. However, if a game is fixed, what looks like a value isn't. If you are unaware that something dodgy is going on, you are playing a losing game, because you'll be taking bets that look like good value, unaware that the market has been distorted. Of course you'll be overstaking, seeing as placing more than £0.00 on a negative expectation bet is overstaking ;) |
|
By:
I think I'm struggling to explain what I mean here because all your points are valid and I look like I'm scrabbling to change my view, when actually I haven't changed it at all
I'm just assuming that if my analysis has captured the correct number of rigged games, then a rigged game amounts to no more than a random dip in form (assuming again that those are random, which is a debate for another place another time of course). However, all your caveats seem correct to me, someone's taking money out of the market, so someone has to be funding it. My argument would be that although I'm one of those funding it, it's allowed for in my overall estimation of my edge in that market, so although I AM funding it, it's a tax I'll never see as I'll get my expected return... it's the expected return estimate that would be too low (despite being correct) |
|
By:
Don't worry Lori. We are mostly friends here even though we might be reluctant to disclose.
I will come to this back later. |
|
By:
Well, it seems like you've answered your own question then:
The danger is that fixed games will negatively impact your returns :D |
|
By:
People get **ed every day on betfair on straight events.
|
|
By:
I'm not sure if you can call it **ing if both parties know what they're getting into...
|
|
By:
If an unfair advantage is available to everyone, can you still call it unfair?
|
|
By:
Feck N. Eejit 02 May 16:36
People get **ed every day on betfair on straight events. But less so than than at their local hight street bookies. Mostly. |
|
By:
There are also unfair advantages not available to everyone, fast pics, but also the less mentioned fastest access to betfair. Being able to act before everyone else is a licence to print money.
I think it is the same small group of people that are able to do this time and time again. |