General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
At long last, I have now accepted the fact that it is impossible to win long-term by BACKING in Match Odds football. Of course, we have all enjoyed a winning streak, dodging bullets for a while. But you can’t back and win consistently enough to achieve long-term profit.
Barcelona were, for me, the last bastion of sanity in the game, but their 2-0 home defeat by newly-promoted Hercules last weekend has now convinced me to give up backing ANYONE. Amazingly, I did not even back Barca myself this time because their pre-match odds were just too ludicrous for words. That they also failed to deliver in the Over 2.5 scenario is another shattering realisation that no-one can be trusted.
Much as you put in the time and effort to study all the stats, do your homework on team line-ups and try to predict and cover every angle possible, you will always be stuffed by someone, somewhere. Be it one of the 22 mostly incompetent, overpaid and overhyped players or the three/four equally incompetent officials, or the clever managers who think they’re smart by leaving out their star man three days before what they consider to be a more important game. One of them will f*** your bet up.
The game is wracked with the illogical. We see it week in, week out, as one favourite is toppled by the outsider. The general erosion of playing standards across the glove at all levels of football has only made it even harder to consistently win by backing the team you think will win.
I know, I should have reached this inescapable truth many moons ago, but there you are. Mug, that’s me. I’ve learnt the hard way.
So it’s lay, lay, lay all the way for me from now on. Small stakes (£2 or £3 to win £100). Just wait until 10 mins from time and watch as, without warning, one team capitulates to the other. Preferably after holding a comfortable-looking two goal lead, so that we’re into 1.02 and 1.01 territory by then.
All it takes is patience and discipline. It happens time and again, week after week.
There is no other way to win consistently on 1x2 football betting.
Or do you disagree?
Barcelona were, for me, the last bastion of sanity in the game, but their 2-0 home defeat by newly-promoted Hercules last weekend has now convinced me to give up backing ANYONE. Amazingly, I did not even back Barca myself this time because their pre-match odds were just too ludicrous for words. That they also failed to deliver in the Over 2.5 scenario is another shattering realisation that no-one can be trusted.
Much as you put in the time and effort to study all the stats, do your homework on team line-ups and try to predict and cover every angle possible, you will always be stuffed by someone, somewhere. Be it one of the 22 mostly incompetent, overpaid and overhyped players or the three/four equally incompetent officials, or the clever managers who think they’re smart by leaving out their star man three days before what they consider to be a more important game. One of them will f*** your bet up.
The game is wracked with the illogical. We see it week in, week out, as one favourite is toppled by the outsider. The general erosion of playing standards across the glove at all levels of football has only made it even harder to consistently win by backing the team you think will win.
I know, I should have reached this inescapable truth many moons ago, but there you are. Mug, that’s me. I’ve learnt the hard way.
So it’s lay, lay, lay all the way for me from now on. Small stakes (£2 or £3 to win £100). Just wait until 10 mins from time and watch as, without warning, one team capitulates to the other. Preferably after holding a comfortable-looking two goal lead, so that we’re into 1.02 and 1.01 territory by then.
All it takes is patience and discipline. It happens time and again, week after week.
There is no other way to win consistently on 1x2 football betting.
Or do you disagree?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 342
|
By:
I disagree. The problem with football is the low scoring unit,
that is, goals, an average in English Football of around 2.6 goals per match, and I can't think of any other sport so low. It's always been that way though, and there is no reason why laying should be better backing, also you have to have the temperament and patience of a short price layer, we are all different. GL. |
|
By:
If you can't back winners how are you going to lay losers so successfully?
|
|
By:
Presumably he now believes that if he can't win by
backing, then he must win by doing the opposite. |
|
By:
laying 1.02 is very specialised game I wouldnt touch it with a barge pole.
|
|
By:
Take last weekend as an examnple.
Without being able to confirm the actual odds just before their collapse (I'm sure someone will be able to though), Man Utd and Preston managed to throw away 2 or 3-goal leads in SUCCESSIVE live Sky matches, let alone what other carnage was happening around the country (even ignoring the overseas leagues). Presumably in both instances, the teams leading went as low as 1.02 to lay? So for stakes of £4, a lay of Man Utd and PNE would have yielded £200 less commission. Compare that to what I would have had to risk to win the same amount. There was another example of this in the Stoke-Villa game last night, when Villa led 1-0 with 10 mins to go and lost 2-1, conceding the second in the 93rd min. Ken - what's the goals ratio got to do with anything? Plse explain. Either teams/players can;t be trusted or they can. Short priced favourites will always be tripped up in football because there are so many variables, things that can - and do - go wrong with alarming frequency. I'm not claiming that simply laying short priced favs PRE-KO is the answer, because it is clearly not. But laying the fav in-running, especially where a 2-goal lead exists and within 10 mins of the end of the game, can be highly profitable over the long-term. And, most importantly, the risk is much, much less because only small stakes are used. It's much better for your state of mind too! |
|
By:
But laying the fav in-running, especially where a 2-goal lead exists and within 10 mins of the end of the game, can be highly profitable over the long-term
Sounds to me like you have taken one weekends sky matches and jumped from that to saying laying 1.02 shots in running is profitable. You must know thats crazy |
|
By:
bren - why crazy? Last weekend was just the latest example of what is happening every weekend. Those two games just happened to be live on the box. But plenty of other in-play games end up the same way.
Are you saying, then, that, by contrast, it's better to put £100 on an even money fave than it is to lay the fave (in running, in the circumstances I've stated) at 1.02...to win the same amount? I know which strategy would go skint quickest in football. For every £100 used to back a different even money shot, I'll get 50 attempts at laying 1.02 before I'll be any worse off. |
|
By:
tbh, the most successful strategy for you will be to close your betfair account.
|
|
By:
how do you know the 1.02 is value or not. if it is not u will go skint,it will just take a bit longer.
|
|
By:
Plechy, assuming this is not a wind-up thread, don't forget you are just looking at a couple of games in isolation. Yes, of course laying the 1.02 (or whatever low odds the games got too) would have won you loads, but then how many other live games went to 1.02 and the fav cruised home? Then what about the non live games - do you do those too? Do you do just the Premerieship or all leagues.....or overseas games too......???
You can't just pick and choose your matches - you are either laying 1.02 blind the whole time and no doubt making a loss OR you take a more sensible approach and lay selective games at those odds when you think it is value to do so. If your judgement is good in the long run, then you'll make a few percent. Equally, you could do the reverse and back the 1.02s and make a profit if you are good enough. Oh, and queue position probably counts for a lot too - similar to the 1.01s getting beaten on the horses which everybody quotes but normally is only one person getting matched. |
|
By:
I've already said that these are NOT two games in isolation. It happens OFTEN. It just so happens I've started this thread after two live games that most of us are generally aware of. In fact, what made me reach the conclusion I have was not so mich those two outcomes, but the Barca defeat (see original post).
Visionary - unless you were a millionnaire or simply barmy, why would anyone risk much by backing at 1.02 in ANY sport? It will inevitable end in tears if you don't have the bank to sustain the inevitable hits. Of course, I wouldn't lay 1.02 blind every time and I accept there are often times when the fav does cruise home. And there are many games that don't even trade at 1.02, such as last night at Stoke. I didnlt lay Villa became they would not have been short enough to win with 10 mins to go and Stoke throwing on attacking subs. So, of course, there is judgement and selection applied. But there are also many times when a team has fluked a 2-0 lead that is ill deserved, and they are therefore vulnerable to late collapse. Those are the kind of matches I;m talking about. |
|
By:
North Berwick - value is in the high of the beholder. 10 people watch a football mnatch and form 10 varying opinions of how it's gone, mainly due to their bias towards one team or other.
|
|
By:
What about people who backed Burnley?
Of which I am not one. |
|
By:
Tarantula Chapati
What about people who backed Burnley? Of which I am not one. =========================================== Presumably they were even more euphoric (not to say relieved) than the happy people who laid PNE. But most of the Burnley backers were pre-KO, not at the stage they began to come from 3-1 down. |
|
By:
have to agree with loserschaselosers
|
|
By:
Close the thread. I've obviously come to the wrong place - the House of Gambling Genius.
|
|
By:
Plechy; your best hope is to do the following. Pick 4 matches that look tight and do any 3 and all 4 for draws. At roughly 9/4 per match 3 winners bring in 33/1 and all 4 240/1. Say you do em for tenners over 30 weeks your outlay is gonna be £1500. You are gonna need to get 3 from 4 up 4 times to be in profit, youv'e also got the bonus of koppin for all 4 to show a health profit. I,ve had 5 goes this season and got 3 up twice.
And when the games kickoff your already on a winner cause they are all 0-0.[;)] |
|
By:
Laying and backing is the same thing. Good luck.
|
|
By:
Indeed. And yet, a full decade after betfair's inception, there are still siren voices screeching that betfair introduced the concept of a punter laying an outcome.
What piffle. |
|
By:
Of course, I wouldn't lay 1.02 blind every time and I accept there are often times when the fav does cruise home.
98.0392% of time to be precise. |
|
By:
Pletchy, the goal ratio has everything to do with it, as it is so difficult to
score a goal. In other sports (Rugby say) the top side will always beat the bottom side as there is so much scoring, whereas in soccer the top side can be camped in the opposition penalty box, and just can't score. It happens all the time and even the best sides are happy to win 1-0 as long as the win. I remember about 5 years ago Sunderland winning at Liverpool without having a shot at goal, and Liverpool having about 25 ! That sort of superiority can't happen in other sports. GL. |
|
By:
Are you saying that this only applies to backing, not to laying?
I was ready to scoff at this statement, only to see that my own cumulative P/L in the match odds markets fro June 2006-June 2010 ties in perfectly. http://i56.tinypic.com/a2w5zq.jpg Dont agree though, and I think that eventually, I'll be profitable on both sides. I paid just over £1k commission on this. Started playing the match odds market fairly recently. It took me a while to find out how to make money consistently in the most efficiently priced type of football market there is. The great thing about these highly liquid markets is that you can keep putting more moeny in for quite a while as your bank increases. |
|
By:
Pletchy, as a bare minimum you must be able to price up the matches you are looking at accurately. If you don't possess this skill then work on it.
Same applies to your idea of laying 1.02/1.01 etc. Do you have a model that you can work to that will show you when the market is wrong? You can rest assured that others have and you'll be the proverbial fish in the barrel. It's not just a case of working hard, it's working smart that counts. Take a little bit of time out and plan. Good luck. |
|
By:
Investor, it's interesting that you note that it is the most efficiently priced market. It is my honest belief that there are some shocking inefficiencies built into that market.
It all depends on how people interpret the information that forms the basis of their decisions. |
|
By:
interesting graph there Investor . must be some reson for that , its more than just an anomaly
|
|
By:
Football betting is like stock picking.
A small few can do it, most can't ( but think they can ). |
|
By:
Strangely, I've noticed something very similar to The Investor in my own charts:
http://i51.tinypic.com/s1hhyd.jpg |
|
By:
^
Nice work Picasso  |
|
By:
Sure there will be inefficienceis dave. Just not as much as in less liquid markets (I believe that efficiency improves as liquidity does to a certain extent).
Coach I'm not sure. I compiled those stats today, and wasn't even aware that this was the case until now. I'll look into it though. |
|
By:
I agree with that investor although I've spent a fair bit of time pondering and don't know if it's right or just an assumption but it's a fairly good assumption. Liquidity = opinion = more efficient?
|
|
By:
That's an interesting point Investor.
It then begs the question if there are more market participants does this then mean that there are proportionately the same percentages of people interpretting correctly/incorrectly as compared to the lower liquidity markets or whether any one side has a greater weighting. It could of course be that the match odds for a football game retains a certain inefficiency due to the number of football fans who take part in that market. It could then also be argued that some of the less liquid markets are in actual fact more efficient due to the fact that there are proportately more clued up people taking part. I wish I had the time to collate data on this... |
|
By:
humm one to think about...
|
|
By:
Although what you're saying makes sense, I think it's not correct. As this guy said on another thread:
curlywurly Joined: 08 Jun 00 Replies: 1094 14 Sep 10 20:58 Most of the problem in the side markets is that there are only 1 or 2 people making the prices. So if mr market maker lays a chunky one it can be almost impossible to green up red out if necessary. This means mr market maker will offer worse prices to compensate and mr bettor will look at the market and think these prices are sh1te. Low liquidity, less chance of trading out, more volatile returns, higher commission costs. This leads to the clued up people you're referring to, having to build in a big spread, leading to less efficient pricing. |
|
By:
To give an example, take the World Cup.
The ratio of leasure punters to pros is higher than usual as even people that don't usually bet, will put some money on. In my opinion, the World Cup markets were far more efficient than average, not less, due to the increase in liquidity. Paradoxically, many pros can expect to earn far more than average despite this. This is because of the huge quantities they can get matched, meaning that even a tiny edge, can lead to substantial profits. |
|
By:
I lost a shed load on the WC. In hindsight, the quality of the games made them too unpredictable for me. Prices had bugger all to do with it (for my part).
|
|
By:
Taking the low liquidity market then. If you have one or two market makers who specialise in that area it might be prudent to assume that they were experts in that area.
Based on this assumption if they are better at estimating the likelyhood of an event occuring then is this market not more efficient than one where there is more fan money floating around? I agree that the market will have a gap in order to ensure that if a market maker gets sided & therefore forced to bet on an event then they have a % in their favour to compensate. ................................................................. With the WC match odds are these potentially some of the least efficient markets? Certainly a market price will be agreed upon, but the information that this is based on would have to be sketchy to say the least as compared to a Premiership game where there is a greater knowledge of the teams? |
|
By:
WC def has much more lequidity, but much more randon outcomes per game.
The That brazillion strike (Messi ??) kept on getting man markd and had a terrable world cup. -Yet hes was said to be great. (I made a truck load. Laying England! ) The problem with betting on the world cup is you dont know if your lead striker is shagged out! |
|
By:
MIB, the lay of England tactic is one whole market inefficiency in it's own right!
 On a more serious note, take a team like Ghana or North Korea for instance. How much more did people who are serious about their football betting know than the average punter who could pick up a copy of the RP or Sun etc on the morning of the game? Probably not that much that would really count. For that reason I had three bets only on the WC this year. |
|
By:
to be truithfull... For the world cup I just layed the entier bottem 16 teams.
With 32 teams in the tournment ech team has only a 3.125% chance. Should any of the bottom 16 teams make it into the 1/4 finals the Liquidity in the "wC winner" market was going to be massive. Add to that the accumulated profits of the teams knocked out and even if 1 team made it to the semi's Id still would have broken even.  |