and then was arsenal

plechy talks a lot of sense here. i'm surprised he gets so much abuse but i guess that's the forum for you. I'm actually watching one flew over the cuckoo's nest and at times the betfair forum reminds me of that movie[smiley:crazy]

as for kevin pulleins assertion that only one in 10000 prices are correct (someone even tried to explain that he was talking about prices within a match- as if that's going to make any difference!)that's just absurd. That's an assertion for someone who never bets, because he fundamentally lacks balls. So he comes out with this kind of statement to make his lack of balls look less embarrasing[:p]

of course if you compare a 2 year old maiden where none of the horses have even run before, and liverpool vs man united, then the difference in the amount of information available to the punter is going to be huge, but that doesn't change the fact that there are huge ricks going on  even in well analysed football matches, all the time. And that will always be the case, as alex mcleish would put it, because of the "human element"

as someone stated earlier a lot of the big teams are punted heavily, because of the name/or just because they have a bigger fan base who will bet on them. I was actually rereading a book by derek mcgovern a while back, the tipster and failed comedian who writes for the daily mirror. as you can imagine most of the book is pretty awful, but he does make some salient points.

the book was written in the nineties, and according to him a lot of the big teams were given at generous prices, like say liverpool (in the days when they could actually play) would be 6-4 to win away to swindon, so simply backing them was a good idea.

now of course the pendulum has swung completely the other way, and you very rarely get decent value about one the big teams. is it so hard to believe then, that you might have some sucsess by doing the opposite?

as for the whole stats argument, for me it's slightly flawed because of the fact that sport is a fluid thing. one team might have a poor record against another side historically but that doesn't always take into account the fact that the other team might improve, but these kind of things are harder to judge than statistical information. its the human element. that's why i find it very hard to believe that markets will ever be as perfect as pullien claims. maybe in a hundred years when betting standards have improved considerably, but not now.

MP - You are wrong to say stats are flawed (or do you mean they have limitations?). They do not provide a perfect picture, but if calculated correctly they will provide a general insight and quantify the likelihood of most outcomes. Sure, if you could know and understand every variable of a game of football then you would have something better suited to each individual game, but you would still need to use some sort of dead reckoning to determine the price (and I know people who can do this with some success) and it would probably be a full-time job keeping that level of knowledge about just one league. Stats are only ever generally right and can only ever be applied generally, but they take away the many flaws in subjective thinking and the recklessness of the ego (just take a peep at the football forum). The difficulty with football is that it is statistically volatile in the short-term, but statistically reliable in the long-term - which is why bookies love it.

If you think stats are flawed, why is it when two evenly matched teams face each other that the draw is considered the most unlikely outcome?

man u matched at 1.02 then pegged back, now ahead again, good for plechy's trading theory.

as for the pullein argument again, (apparently this mathematician that takes too much abuse ) take the games yesterday. west brom were 2.38 pre match, which looked too short to me, but the cold numbers people like pullein, would have said that was about right, and they were correct. west brom will win that match a certain percentage of the time.

but then you take the everton-newcastle game, would the stats really justify making everton as short as 1.6? and even if they did, what about the fact that everton had started the season badly, were woefully lacking in confidence, newcastle are on a high over the last year (even if they got battered by blackpool) and have clearly improved from two seasons ago?

so in answer to your question plechy, I don't think stats are flawed, I just think it's flawed to see them as the be all and end all, and have to always be considered with other factors, which are more difficult to "pin down"

Kenilworth is guaranteed to leap to the defence of any journalist who is criticized, especially if the said person is one Kevin Pullein.

For what it's worth, stats are usually completely irrelevant. Who cares what happened the previous 5 seasons when the sides met, it's the merits of the sides today that count.

There are some here who rightly believe that a football match takes place irrespective of the stats. What they fail to see is that stats may identify aspects of the game that otherwise remain hidden. Just as no match ever produces 2.6 goals, it might be perfectly sane to expect 2.6 goals.

gibmark, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

mythical prince

as for kevin pulleins assertion that only one in 10000 prices are correct (someone even tried to explain that he was talking about prices within a match- as if that's going to make any difference!)that's just absurd. That's an assertion for someone who never bets, because he fundamentally lacks balls. So he comes out with this kind of statement to make his lack of balls look less embarrasing

Only two types of people would say the above, (1) Those who do.n't understand stats, bit like vandals who have no skills, so seek gratification by destroying or abusing. (2) Idiots. Some fit both categories.

Has he really said the 10,000 thing , sounds like an exaggeration from someone making fun of him.

If that were correct we might as well all log out  .

The fact that - leaving aside the volatility leading up to a match on here - the bookies significantly cut the prices of many teams between their opening show and kick off , surely proves that there are plenty of incorrect prices on match odds each week alone, unless you believe that 15/8 on Tuesday and 11/8 on Friday for the same team playing the same opponents for one match on the  Saturday can both be correct at the times they were available. And i'm not talking about when there is significant injury or 'rotation' news in between , just when, as is usually the case , they have taken a lot ( or what they consider to be a lot) of money on one side of the book.

I would think the 1 in 10000 was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

And you keep polishing that knob of yours.
Both pointless.

You mean he might be cheating on you ?

I think it is funny how people deride statistics as being of no use for predicting the outcome of todays event and are, in the view of some, therefore next to useless.

Using historical data will not predict the winner today, but it will give you a guide as to whether todays event is one where you should get involved or not. The decision thereafter is up to the individual.

Here endeth the lesson.

.................................................................


Mythical, I have already been down the Pullein path with Ken ages ago and confirm that it is my honest belief that Ken is NOT Kevin Pullein.

I did a pretty thorough analysis of schalkes 200 or so bets in his £40-£0 thread showing how value could predict the future. It wasn't a big sample size, but the results were pretty easy to understand.

It won't be of much use to those who enjoy the maths of such things, but it was an actual analysis of actual bets of someone who was trying to win and might appease those who think an individual result matters if correctly staked. (Obviously if you put your life's savings on one thing then you care who wins today, but then if you do that you have a negative EG anyway)

Statistically most of us will lose on BF.
But I bet most of us ignore that stat.
What's the difference.
We use stats to support or justify an opinion formed by other factors, not to actually make the opinion.
Stats are cognitive dissonance in the betting world.

Two days worth of games obviously isn't the ideal sample size to be able to judge what is and isn't the norm

I would guess with a blind picking strategy you will lose just over 5% (or just above whatever your commission rate is). this would be the same result as backing all teams that were leading with 5 minutes to go blind, unless there is an inefficiency in the markets in general where leading teams are either too big or too short. In football, this is pretty unlikely as if it were the case someone would have exploited it before, but if anything, i would say the price on teams in front is likely to be too high, with people greening out their prematch backs and with people who love laying short odds. This phenomenon can be seen on stoppage time of a level match, where the draw is often too high.

Plechy - if you bet like someone playing RUSSIAN ROULETTE ( blindly betting....with no edge )....guess what...............................YOU DIE


FOOTBALL betting is very very difficult to win on ...whether you BACK ...LAY ......and it is hard to have an "edge" on.......unless you are a professional with huge bank...who will have BOOK bets etc etc

From what you have posted on this thread ....you got no chance winning whether you LAY or BACK.......as you are playing RUSSIAN ROULETTE without an "edge"!

FINE AS FROG HAIR - do you believe the markets are always "right" re the odds of favourites?


Generally this is probably "true".

HOWEVER.........if you are trying to find an edge on a game.....each game being judged on its merit/circumstances.....the market odds are irrelevant.

For example Mon      20/09/10        Slavia Praha         1 - 2         Sparta Praha



SP scored first ........not surprising really...and an edge on a match surely based on stats............and common sense....

Big players may well use a BOOK method on bets...............however, they may set a market for their odds....and if they get game wrong.....their BOOK might protect their bets.


I think you are posting from LAYERS perspective .....who don't give a monkeys re stats.


If you are a BACKER......you gotta have an "edge" ....and stats can only "help" you on your bet ........they certainly are not a hindrance to betting on a match.


If you prefer to ignore STATS...................then fair enough .....but that is your choice....but as you are probably a LAYER..............it won't matter to you as long as you get your BOOK filled up!

What do bookmakers do ? How do they arrive at their prices ?
Based on stats of course. They offer for instance, Home 11/8
Away 15/8, Draw 9/4 when they calculate the stats based true
chances are 38%, 31%, 31%. They then invite us to bet at their
prices which will guarantee them a profit, as the margin was
in their favour. Sometimes they get things wrong, not often,
but occasionally.