General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 220 comments are related to the topic:
Winners don't share. Discuss.
Winners don't share. Discuss.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 220
|
By:
Trevh - like I said before, the amount of money punted on here has no bearing on how I interpret where the money is going. Money gets recycled over and over on these exchanged.
As for Fed at Wimbledon, you better believe the books keep taking and losing money on him, the amount traded on a years entire grand slam tennis is a pittance when compared to a World Cup or Cheltenham etc, OTC the money taken on the likes of Fed is dwarfed by dozens of football games or big horse races every year. FFS the X Factor must rival the tennis in turnover. Askart1 - It's just the chance I take, been doing wonders for me since last August. Could all go pear shaped at any point, theres decades of punters losing cash to say it wont though. Laying Spain tonight? Yep, I'm laying a couple of things, not Spain in 90 mins though, my figures actually tell me to back them (though havent put any backing bets in yet). Considering that over 2.5 in the Brazil and Argentina games were my only loses thus far of the quarter finals, I can more than take Spain running up a cricket score. Looks like if Spain draw or lose, I lose a little (will be on them 90 mins, if Spain win by more than 2 I lose a little (laying them -1) but if Spain win by just one goal then I'm dancing. Horrible short term view though, I never look at individual games and try to out think the markets, wheres thinking got punters upto now? This thread isnt about what I'm doing, its about winning strategies, somebody mentioned that the bookies have been showing us for hundreds of years how its done, I'm simply giving my spin on it. The gist of my first post was to impress the fact that bookmakers virtually always carry hefty liabilities, they don't look to green up at all, whish was what somebody implied. Mathew Webb- I've had some bets and some success, some failures too, fell into the same traps as most people. Had some great calls along the way though, few big prices posted on the footy forum.. outwith my 'anti-punter' bets I rarely see stakes of more than 5-10 quid, its all a laugh really with them. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Thanks for Clarifying clacher, you seem to have a better insight than most, I've heard too that the bookies don't do very well out of tennis, probably more to do with the fact there's little money staked in comparison to the otehr sports.
Back to the thread, I think people who use computer programs to create their own odds and back test the startegy over years worth of data finding a small percentage of edge have the best winning strategy. They will go completely unnoticed because you don't know why or how they are betting. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
MARVELOUS THREAD
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Having access to a bookmakers liabilities is a nice set of data to have :). I guess if you don't think the amount wagered on a selection on the exchanges is relevant due to traders and recycled money. Then I guess the closest thing to working out how much goes onto a selection is by looking the tote odds and working out the percentages taking into consideration the `take`.
I remember a couple of years ago someone on SmartSig did an investigation into the percentage of money wagered vs odds to identify any angles. This was based on the exchange money. If I remember correctly, the results were largely inconclusive, but leaned towards laying as being the most likely way of getting an edge. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Laying Spain tonight? Yep, I'm laying a couple of things, not Spain in 90 mins though, my figures actually tell me to back them (though havent put any backing bets in yet). Considering that over 2.5 in the Brazil and Argentina games were my only loses thus far of the quarter finals, I can more than take Spain running up a cricket score. Looks like if Spain draw or lose, I lose a little (will be on them 90 mins, if Spain win by more than 2 I lose a little (laying them -1) but if Spain win by just one goal then I'm dancing. The punters thought the -1 price was too big and the 90 minutes price was too small, they also said that Villa would score the first goal (absolutely mind boggling he did given the pens before hand, but thats the randomness of football in full show tonight). I went against them both and came out on top despite David Villa's best efforts. Last time I post any of this, over time I could prove the bookmakers make their enormous profits going against what punters think but I'll leave you all to come to that conclusion yourselves with a bit of opinion watching. Winners do share bits and pieces, I'm not even the first to post half the things I have on this thread about bookmakers making their profits this way, you just need to fill in the gaps yourselves. And there will be far bigger winners than me out there spilling bits and pieces onto here daily. Chelseagirl - I see no reason whatsoever to use that approach to gauging peoples opinions on an event, it doesnt need to be that complicated though, you could spend an hour browsing the forums here and youll find dozens of bets that people are far too confident about. You could probably work backwards from the betfair market to judge what their opinion is worth, then lay/back it. I suppose somebody can become a good judge of any sport and form a system around their theories on it, must be loads out there doing it (zero on football) but it ain't for me. I'll make that my last post on this thread I can see where its heading..! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Lays
Villa first goal -299.64 Over 2.5 +123.54 Spain -1 +146.43 Spain win 2-0 +106.81 Backs Spain 90 mins +217.44 Spain HT -30.38 Spain HTFT -45.49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
This is for DFC Ironman,re confirmation bias.Serious question;i have a race that normally has about 20 runners,i have something that has given the winner, in 6, 17 out of the last 18 years [other year 2nd].
This seems good to me,tho not being able to compare with other peoples research,thus i pose the question,how good is it,considering winner in 6,17 out of 18?. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
pipedreamer - can't answer the question, as without knowing what race type etc such a stat does not mean much IMO.
For example - you could probably select the winner of the last 20 DERBY races using certain factors ...and this would be out of top 6 rated horses possessing certain factors in favour. The more complicated the race type , then the harder it would be to get the winner 17 out of 18 races from the top 6 rated. With a "simpler" race type it should not be too difficult to get the winner .......but the odds probably are not that good for such winners. If you stated the race that you believe such a stat is "good", then you would get more feed-back. Without specifics ......can't really say whether "good" or not .... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Here are the only 20 runner races my system attempted to rate in part of 2008 -
Open National Hunt Flat Race (Listed) (Class 1) (4-6yo) 2m1f Good Standard Open National Hunt Flat Race Grade 2 (Class 1) (4-6yo) 2m1f Good Novices´ Handicap Hurdle(Class 3) 4yo+ 3m Good To Soft Mares Standard Open National Hunt Flat(Class 4) (4-6yo) 2m1f Good Stakes (Listed Race)(Class 1) (3yo+) 6f Good Maiden Stakes(Class 4) (3yo) 1m Good To Soft Handicap 4yo plus 5f Class 5 SP WHERE ODDS WAS OF WINNER WINNERS RATED FIELD 01.04.08 SIZE 5.3 20 25-1 8TH RATED 5.35 20 14-1 18TH R 5.15 20 13-2 TOP RATED 5.15 20 9-2 2ND TR 3.1 20 17-2 2ND TR 1.4 20 6-1 10TH RATED 3.05 20 22-1 9TH RATED So only 7 races from 01.04.08 to 10.05.08 had just 20 runners...and winner was in top 2 rated 3 times out of 7 races.....backing top 2 in each of races AT SP ODDS would give a profit..... Would backing the TOP 6 in your 18 races have given you a profit ? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Of course it could be argued that 4 winners out of the 7 above races were in top 6 in market.......however backing 6 runners = 42 bets ....to get 4 winners ....but that would be a LOSS at SP etc...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
I really like the differing views on profit making through betfair.
No one size fits all, no golden goose, just individuals trusting what they know and having faith in their personal choices. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
There have been several experiments in financial markets based on giving say 5 rules to investors that should guarantee a profit.
The results show that even if a solid method does show a profit, the investors failed to make money, because they tweaked the rules, chased losses, didnt follow it through etc No reason to suppose it would be any different on here ?? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
I think there is a similar test for compulsive gambling in that give a punter a winning system and see if they are disciplined enough to stick with it without dabling elsewhere.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Ok,the race i'm talking about is the Ebor,which included the 100-1 shot Mudawin.Obviously i use other winner in 6,sometimes winner in 4,with a sometimes 8 consecutive years success rate and put them all together,thus filtering it all down.Once had winner in 4, 5 consec. years in the Royal Hunt Cup,very useful.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
ive posted a few times why the bookies make the cash and how we can replicate it.
its not that the winners dont share, its that the losers dont know how to listen, it took me 5 years to figure it out and ive no doubt others are using the same approach, nobody wants to hear it. Yep! [:D] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
REM Joined: 09 Jun 02
Replies: 1603 04 Jul 10 12:17 I think there is a similar test for compulsive gambling in that give a punter a winning system and see if they are disciplined enough to stick with it without dabling elsewhere. That's where i went wrong. Found a cracking method for tennis that going back over years of results would make a shed load of profit. I even started a blog to help keep my discipline but i still went back to scalping the football and lost loads. Now im just trying again and fingers crossed i can be disciplined enough to just do my tennis system and hopefully reap the profits! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
If it's true that the bookmakers form their books on opinion rather than relying on mug prices, (which I can see has to be the case sometimes) then why aren't all the shops closed and they just use the exchanges?
Then they don't have to participate in markets they don't really want to either?? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
pipedreamer Joined: 25 Feb 05
Replies: 106 04 Jul 10 17:28 Ok,the race i'm talking about is the Ebor,which included the 100-1 shot Mudawin.Obviously i use other winner in 6,sometimes winner in 4,with a sometimes 8 consecutive years success rate and put them all together,thus filtering it all down.Once had winner in 4, 5 consec. years in the Royal Hunt Cup,very useful. ============================================================================================= I just had a quick look at winners for last 6 years ....and 5 of them, including MUDAWIN , would have scored many points from certain relevant factors. Probably they would be in top rated horses ( can't tell that for certain, as would need full race card prior to race to run data through....not that I would now etc ) MEPHISTO I suspect is the winner that you did not get in your top 6 rated???( certain factors not there etc ). AM I RIGHT???? There is one factor that particularly stands out ...and I know that you know what that is...... So as there were some high odds winners there....wd .... I really believe that is ALL THE FACTORS that should be taken into account on rating a race......and most of the winners...in fact all of the ones I looked at going back to 2002...would get many points for the factors in favour. If you did this , then I suspect the winners would be in top 3 rated ....not just in top 6 etc The 100-1 SP winner is what makes your "results" excellent on that race.........BUT IF YOU ARE JUST GOING BY THAT ONE FACTOR PREVALENT IN 5 OUT OF THE 6 RACE FROM 2002 TO 2007, THEN IT IS A CRUDE METHOD THAT "WORKED"........BUT REALLY IT WAS ALL THE FACTORS THAT GAVE THOSE HORSES THE CHANCE TO WIN.....IF YOU WERE USING MORE THAN ONE FACTOR, THEN VERY WELL DONE! I am naturally curious re was it MEPHISTO that you never got as winner? Gl with bets. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Sorry i meant by "the last 6 years " ...the years 2002 to 2007
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
The investor, imv p-value in statistical terms is a much better indicator of whether your returns are due to luck (or are likely to be be due to luck) than measures which look narrowly at the volatility of yr winnings (like the Sharpe ratio as used in the stock market).
The thinking here is that you can take on a lot of value longshots that keep on losing over long periods, then 'hit' more than once in quick succession. Sharpe and information ratios are not good at capturing edges in this way (and all historical figures are deficient in not giving any sense of the likelihood of eventualities that have never happened). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Checked a few more races ....and pretty certain your "system" is based on...............won't say here[:p] ( although probably you are not the only one applying such a "simplistic" system of selection......not being "rude" ....just commenting on selecting by 1 factor etc ).
What i suggest you do is take the top 6 "rated" ( or should i say "selected" horses) and apply ratings based on other factors as well.........and i am sure you will find that the winner would probably be in top 2/3 rated .......which would cut down the number of bets on that race. GL with bets. BTW ...I'd stake a £1 on it that MEPHISTO was the one you never caught.....although had the appeal been accepted by the 2nd......you would have had winner.....  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
TOTGA - I think the example above shows why you can't discuss strategies that "work" on here....if too much detail given.
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Cant locate the Ebor stuff at the mo DC,want to discuss?,jimwalkw@hitmeal.com
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Mudawin
Mephisto
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Mephisto stats didn't tabulate as expected, I'll try again.
Mephisto
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
 For the final time, I promise.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
What is your "point" top2rated ?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
WD with BALWEARIE yesterady in comp
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
DFC - I notice you seem to go after one horse per race. What's your reasoning behind this? Is it bottom ranked or a price sensitive selection. I ask, because my systems are the opposite in that I can't convert my ratings to a price, but using selection criteria I make a decent profit taking on all the negative horses (seems to work better than backing the positives).
Would understand if you prefer not to discuss this. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
REM - I am not using "system" when betting at present.
The "system" is a lotta "work" and I needed a break from using it. Normally I can look at a race and "see" where the winner is likely to come from. Mainly handicap races. I then take race conditions into account etc....and can see which horses are unlikely to win. I AM LOOKING TO LAY 1 HORSE IN A RACE.....WHICH IS MAIN BET NORMALLY. I then evaluate which one is unlikely to win, using parts of system ( calculations can be done in head) and also after checking out some information re horses.....If ODDS are "reasonable" to lay ....i decide how much that risk should be taking accopunt of race shape etc. THERE IS NO SET AMOUNT TO LAY.....EACH RACE TAKEN ON ITS MERITS. I could lay other horses in race, but 1 horse selection means less chance of taking a hit than say 3/4 selections in same race. Horses are also selected to BACK, when I feel it is worth backing .....but i don't do this every race. i will also do FCS and RFS with certain races........either to hedge a liability on a horse layed or to try to gain good profit from getting 1st and 2nd in correct order. The FCS and RFC /EXACTAS are only bet with small stakes. For example - Horse Racing > Hayd 3rd Jul : 1m4f Hcap Showing 1 - 3 of 3 Selections Selection Odds Stake(£) Bid type Placed Profit/loss(£) Anhar 10.00 6.00 Back 03-Jul-10 13:38 54.00 Anhar 1.80 5.00 Lay 03-Jul-10 14:16 -4.00 Bowdlers Magic 7.00 21.00 Lay 03-Jul-10 13:38 21.00 *Average odds: On Off Back subtotal: 54.00 Lay subtotal: 17.00 Market subtotal: 71.00 Commission @ 3.3%: 2.34 Net Market Total: 68.66 In this race I thought ANHAR would win....but BOWDLERS MAGIC may well get 2nd. I did not believe the fav would win or be in first 2. So as the odds on the RFC were attractive in this race.....I bet the RFC , as a partial hedge on my lay on BM, and also to try to gain good profit if I was correct with a race where there were few runners and to me the bet was the "obvious" one to go for.... Horse Racing > Hayd (RFC) 3rd Jul : Reverse FC Showing 1 - 1 of 1 Selections Selection Odds Stake(£) Bid type Placed Profit/loss(£) 1 - 5 / 5 - 1 35.60 5.00 Back 03-Jul-10 14:14 173.00 *Average odds: On Off Back subtotal: 173.00 Lay subtotal: 0.00 Market subtotal: 173.00 Commission @ 3.3%: 5.71 Net Market Total: 167.29 So on that race made very good profit from relatively few bets.... Just letting you see that I tend to bet taking account of VALUE in odds where I can see clear VALUE etc. If i had run the "system" on the race....it probably would have had winner as top rated....and BOWDLERS MAGIC might have been only 3rd rated....but as i just did not believ the fav would be in first 2 home.....I used the VALUE in odds on that race to try to make good profit etc. I know this all might seem complicated ....but it was relatively a "simple" race ( 2.15 race on 3rd JULY 2010) and it was relatively "easy" for me to see what the bets should be. Don't know if this "helps" ....but might give you rough idea on what and why I am betting this way. Gl with bets. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
BTW ANHAR WAS 10-1 SP WINNER........so my BACK bet at 10s on here was not too "clever"!
However, the RFC on here was at very good odds and made up for quick grab on 10s on here for win....which at time I though was excellent odds....hard to believe it won at 10-1 SP. Pos. Dr. Dist. Horse Wt Jockey Trainer Age SP 1 2 Anhar (USA) 9-7 t1 T E Durcan Saeed Suroor 3 10/1 slowly into stride and went left start, in touch in rear and took keen hold, switched right over 2f out, picked up well from over 1f out to lead inside final furlong, ran on opened 15/2 touched 10/1 2 3 1½ Bowdler's Magic 8-9 J Fanning M Johnston 3 11/2 tracked leader, ridden and every chance from 2f out until leant left onto rival entering final furlong, stayed on, not pace of winner opened 11/2 touched 11/2 3 5 1 Mecox Bay (IRE) 8-2 David Probert A M Balding 3 16/1 led, ridden 2f out, soon headed, still every chance when squeezed for room on inside entering final furlong, no impression after opened 14/1 touched 16/1 4 7 hd Berling (IRE) 9-0 E Ahern J L Dunlop 3 2/5 f prominent, led well over 1f out, soon ridden, headed inside final furlong, unable to quicken opened 1/2 touched 1/2 £800-£1500 (x3) £800-£1400 5 6 8 Nurture (IRE) 9-4 p G Baker R M Beckett 3 20/1 in touch in rear, pushed along over 4f out, ridden over 2f out, soon beaten opened 14/1 touched 20/1 Non-Runners NR Kingdom Of Munster (IRE) 8-5 P Hanagan Ian Williams 3 NR Tipperary Boutique (IRE) 8-10 M Hills B W Hills 3 Tote Win: £8.30 Tote Place: £3.40,£2.10 Straight Forecast: £54.93 Exacta: £38.30 35.60 RFC odds were better than 50% SFC odds etc | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
DFC - thanks for that. I only crunch numbers for certain hcaps, otherwise I revert to instinctive form reading. Crunching takes time and is dull, but I don't skip useful pointers that way. A lot depends on how confident I'm feeling. My main problem playing spot the donkey is that if the market has identified the donkey too, then there is little value in playing unless I can make a clear-cut verdict on the price as a hit can hurt, although it still appears profitable longterm.
Thanks & good luck. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
The first race at 2.15 today shows just how wrong the market can be!
I agree about "confidence" ....you need to have it ....and as I never "know for certain" that a horse WILL LOSE or WILL WIN......the "confidence" is not at "high" level most of time. probably a "good" thing. Luckily in 1st rae layed fav win and place and had backed the winner ...win and place....laying part off IR etc.....so a great start to day.....wish they all started that way[:p] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
yep, I tend to take on bumper winners starting off short over timber
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Curse. 3.30 first system bet.
Under Fire clear top rated, decided to go with the place lay plan and layed 6 of 10 with 5 losers leaving a small profit. That's the problem with multiple staking systems on one ratings model, and the race looked a little wobbly. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
4.30 and everything points to Goldern Rock...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
... good job i stuck with the place lays 3 from 3
[happy:] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
Interesting thread.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By:
chelseagirl 03 Jul 10 20:36
I remember a couple of years ago someone on SmartSig did an investigation into the percentage of money wagered vs odds to identify any angles. This was based on the exchange money. If I remember correctly, the results were largely inconclusive, but leaned towards laying as being the most likely way of getting an edge. That was my research. It’s hard to believe it’s over seven years since those two articles were published in SmartSig and quite a lot has changed since then. I did use the method for a few months on here, but it was a bit hit and miss because I was never really happy with the fairly crude algorithm I was using at the time to calculate odds based on money transacted. As pointed out by clacherholiday2, this exchange does not behave like a betting pool; the odds available are not directly dependant on the amount of money transacted on any given outcome. Which isn’t to say there’s no correlation between the two, it’s just that it can be a bit tenuous, to say the least. But that’s by the by. I’ve been fairly lucky in the intervening years and found a couple of methods that worked better and rode that train till it started to grind to a halt late last year. So armed with several years experience and a need to find something else, I returned to the old idea. I started gathering data and developed a new algorithm. It works a lot better than the old one and I’ve been using it to find my bets since February. Now here’s the crux of the matter. For the first four months it worked really well, identifying backs, not lays as previously. However, over the course of the last month, results have been bad. This begs the question, is the last month a statistical aberration, or were the previous four months’ profits the result of luck? The answer to that question remains unknown – there’s a clear correlation evident in the data, to what extent it can be exploited is another issue. One last point I would like to make is that this method did not work for football seven years ago and it does not appear to work now…or at least I’ve not been smart enough to find a solution  . |