We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
I've created a short blog that I hope will create some interest. If you are betting along the same lines and have some ideas I will add them.
I hope you read with interest.
(Just for the record I'm not selling anything here - honest).
The blog can be found at:
http://probabilitybetting.weebly.com/index.html
Cheers,
Bob.
I hope you read with interest.
(Just for the record I'm not selling anything here - honest).
The blog can be found at:
http://probabilitybetting.weebly.com/index.html
Cheers,
Bob.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 16
|
By:
Problem is that if you find something that works, and blog about, it will stop working.
|
|
By:
Good luck with it though. Hope you find out something useful.
|
|
By:
The notion that betting odds are efficient (wisdom of the crowd and so on) is way off the mark - especially in horse racing.
|
|
By:
In football it's good though. In highly liquid markets, odds tend to correct themselves very quickly when out of line.
|
|
By:
Actually I think I disagree with that as well. You need the right angle to look at it.
But my sample size is too small as of yet (only about 350 games), so I am not completely sure. I am as far as baseball bookie odds are concerned. |
|
By:
Investor, I would tend to agree with Pollox.
It is all in the way you analyse the sport in question. A market may be correct from one perpective, but it could be radically out of kilter if you took a different view of how you approached something. Football is the perfect example I think. So many fans are involved in the market and their idea of analysis is loosely based on who has beaten whom and what happened last week and who they don't like etc etc. Some very big mistakes get made. |
|
By:
I've had some interesting replies so far and it seems that you have to workout whether the betfair odds are greater or less than the 'unblinkered probability' - Take tonights Rotherham v Aldershot game - The odds of under 2.5 goals are 1.79 - If you look at the previous 12 games you will see that both teams don't usually score more than 2.5 goals combined. I calculate the odds to be around 1.4 for under 2.5 goals, this would make Under 2.5 goals at 1.79 a good bet.
Any thoughts on this? |
|
By:
Are you talking odds or dividend if you think the dividend
should be 1.4 which is 2/5 on, in odds that suggests that you believe that there is a 72% chance that 2.5 goals is unattainable. That seems a very high % to me. |
|
By:
Also the average number of goals scored in the play-offs is significantly less than in the course of a normal season. Something like 2.3 versus 2.6.
|
|
By:
Thanks Compound Magic.
I based the calculation on 3 out of 12 were over. This equals 75% being under - so odds are 1.4 Which ever way you calculate the figures I guess it always comes back to the 'Wisdom of the Crowd' figure. Some people say it will be under a specific percentage probability, some say it will be over. If the average is nearer 2.3 goals for play-off matches this is nearly odds of 2.0, so somewhere inbetween is 1.7 which is the price on Betfair. It's peoples different opinions that make the price what it is. |
|
By:
The thing with wisdom of the crowd is... just because 50% of all the 2.00 shots around here do win (if they actually do, but even if), that doesn't necessarily mean that these odds were an accurate assessment.
Sounds counter-intuitive, but wrapping your head around it may well be worth your while. |
|
By:
inter indin it hard to player their football on this bobbly [pitch
|
|
By:
findin + play *** lol getin late
|
|
By:
Pollox and DaveEdwards,
The way I operate here is that I start with the most liquid market (match odds), assume it is efficiently priced, and then make inferences from that. In some cases I work backwards and test the efficiency of match odds pricing based on the other markets. I should explain what I meant. When I say 'out of line', I meant the odds being out of line with each other across markets. This happens sometimes. As a rule, the more liquidity there is, the more efficient a market will be. A simple example of mispricing would be next goal : no goal odds of 8.8-9 and correct score : 0-0 odds of 9.2-9.4 Another example would be the combined odds of 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3 not being almost identical to the draw price (4-4, 5-5, 6-6 etc. are usually so unlikely that they won't change the price much). These examples are fairly simple, but far more complex relationships exist between markets. If you have a good model, you can quickly spot when this relationship breaks down, and when it does, it usually corrects itself quickly. DaveEdwards, when you say some very big mistakes get made, what do you mean exactly? Do you think that in a match odds market for football it happens that say a team trading at 2 should be priced at 3? I'm not talking about new information becoming available that radically changes the expected outcome. Just based on past data available to everyone, do you think such big mistakes get made by 'the market'? |
|
By:
I have very good reason to believe a lot more odds are out of whack then even I ever thought possible.
I developed a system for MLB baseball, for the sole reasons they play a huge amount of season games (around 160 per team in roughly half a year), so it lends itself to analysis - being a summer sport also helps, as I'm not tied up with thinking about soccer as much. I found an angle that is readily available to everyone on the MLB official website, and it provides not a huge edge, but very decent given the huge amount of games. Maybe 95% of the games are a bet, and the system produces solid profits without taking into account injuries in any manner. The system being profitable means that a lot of these odds are ineffecient. I suspect this is also the case for other sports. The way to go is obviously something the majority doesn't. And what the majority of people always look at is recent form, which is probably why the odds tend to be efficient when looked at from that angle. |
|
By:
I based the calculation on 3 out of 12 were over. This equals 75% being under - so odds are 1.4
It is mistake to presume that because 9 from 12 were 'unders' that it would continue that way. The reason why you got 9 from 12 is because it is too small a sample, therefore unreliable, especially when 'unders' is historically about 53% of all matches in the last 10 seasons. If red came up 9 times from 12 on a roulette wheel would you presume it was a good bet at 1.40 ? Of course not, but if it came up 90 out of 120 that would be something different. |