Well said Mr.Frog.I feel that my penny is just beginning to lower itelf.

Hi Toby,
did you give up laying the shorteners ?

Would like to have another go at it Tiger , can't afford to though for the forseeable future.

Annoying [>o] , started the first one with £100 , finished on £279 , then turned that to £606 at the  WC .

Had to withdraw it all and that didn't even make a dent in the financial situation.

Would like at least £500 to start anew with it , as lowers the % risk and generaes more commission points.

frog ..nice post ,,would you mind expaining what you meant by double negatives ,,
only of course if it doesnt give too much away , ty

I used to pop in to BA forum to see who was on the other side of my position, now I come here.

"value is everything" hahaha the old ones are the best. Ahh those were the days.

see earlier post.

mythical prince
Replies: 1588 21 Sep 10 20:30   
plechy, it seems crazy to me that you didn't lock in a profit having laid something at 1.02 which then drifts out to 1.6, but each to their own. for me it just seems plain wrong that you have laid something at 1.02, got that right, and still made a loss on the match!--------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth and TTT - I just checked my history. I laid Man U @ 1.03 for £50 and therefore a liability of just £1.50.

I know some on here would have locked in some profit from the situation but, with only £1.50 'on the line' and (in theory) the momentum with Liverpool, I was happy to let it ride. A £47.50 profit on the gamne would have wiped out my losses on the weekend to that point. Some will call me a mug. I call it a gamble. Whether we all care to admit it, that is what we all do on here anyway if truth be told.

I'm even more disillusioned with my laying at short odds/very low stakes plan after another losing night. Can you believe that all the Carling Cup and in-play league games failed to produce even once goal AFTER the 83rd minute?

I backed Arsenal (for small stakes, not worth laying at 0-1) from the start, saw them denied a genuine second goal when the linesman saw an 'offside' that wasn't, and then watched Spurs alllowed a goal that WAS clearly offside. To further encapsulate everything said in my original post about the 'idiot factor', Flapianski then pathetically allowed Keane's equaliser to pass under his body. Human error f***k up strikes again! Now tell me, please, Stattos, where in the Staistical Probability Book of Betfair Geniuses does it say that the same lino will **** it up twice and make such huge bet-shifting decisions? Did Pullein call that one too? Damn, if only I'd done my research better, I would have known.

Arsenal bring on their big guns at the end, but can't find a winner in the time. Into extra time and - hey presto! - three more Arsenal goals go in.

I think there is a message for me here somewhere.

I'm even more disillusioned with my laying at short odds/very low stakes plan after another losing night. Can you believe that all the Carling Cup and in-play league games failed to produce even once goal AFTER the 83rd minute?

^ well yes i can plechy m8. very easily in fact. if nothing else theres the extra time factor, which means teams are less inclined to throw men forward knowing theres always another 30 mins. some of the teams that are behind, like bolton for example, probably don't care that much about the carling cup given the priority is premiership survival, and probably aren't that good either.

I always like to leave a full green screen if it's easy to do so. sometimes that can cost me though. like today I back this horse, I can't even remember its name now, at about 18 inrunning. however just before the line i'm trying to lay it off inrunning at odds on, but i click on the screen and straight away it moves to 8s, this being betfair rapid of course, and i end up losing most of my profits when it wins the race.

for example if you had greened up, when man scored again, you could go back in and lay them, whos to say liverpool wouldnt have made it 3-3?

it does seem to me that you are getting too emotionally involved in these matches though. for me it's just numbers on a screen, i'm just tossing numbers around and trying to get an edge.

If you have 20 years experience in the City, why on Earth would you be using Betfair?  Surely you've already earned millions from city trading and can continue to do so.  Betfair must be peanuts for you?

Plechy "I'm even more disillusioned with my laying at short odds/very low stakes plan after another losing night. Can you believe that all the Carling Cup and in-play league games failed to produce even once goal AFTER the 83rd minute?"


Plechy, perhaps you're playing in the wrong market? My records show that Tuesday (day time and evening) in-play matches (29 matches) produced 10 matches with a goal after the 83rd minute.

If Player A wins 1st frame...

A - 1.45

B - 3.20

you say that liamross ..and i ve thought about it ,
but 1.01 s dont always happen , in 3 weeks of prem footie ,
man u twice , arsenal , bolton ,
takes alot to get back too

Sorry, the RFO predicted 16 (not 15) correct results today.

I agree with tobermory. Absolutely spot on.

Surely the trouble with " value " betting is that how do you know that you're betting at value.
Just winning a bet means nothing.
The only way you can tell if your valuations are proving to be good, is to wait until you have had quite a large number of wagers and see if you are ahead.
If you're not, by then it's too late to do anything about it.
If you are ahead, then presumably your valuations are giving you an edge, but will you ever be sure that the value techniques you have been doing to that date will hold up in the future.
Again you will just have to wait and see. A neveer ending saga of doubt and worry methinks.
On the other hand if you are betting in a systematic manner where the prices only have to be reasonably fair and you are coming out ahead, then you will be much more certain that it should all continue in the future as in the past.
Now what such a system could possibly be is the question.
Some will say that no such system exists.
Others will say that perhaps the correct statement is that nobody has put such a system in the public domain, for very good reasons.
A simple example, arbitrage systems really don't care what the absolute price level is, it's the relation of prices to each other that matters. They could both be good or bad value per se, but it doesn't essentially matter.

As I said many years ago on this forum - value seekers are pickers too.  They just believe they are cleverer.

FAFH,

An arbitrage system profits due to value.

Again you will just have to wait and see. A neveer ending saga of doubt and worry methinks.

A never ending quest for improvement is more in line with how I see it. You start with assumptions/observations/analysis and build a model around it. Essentially all models are wrong, but some are useful", says it best.

At it's core a value betting system is based on a set of assumptions. The empirical evidence you gather over time will help you determine with a greater level of confidence whether your model is useful (has the desired positive expectancy).

A simple example of a profitable value betting 'system':
Check prices across bookmakers. In situations where an arb exists, and this is due to a single selection being out of line  (a better price offered) with the majority by more than 5% with a limited number of bookies, bet on that selection (Kelly staking).

The assumption here is that if a limited number of bookies offer a significantly better price than the rest of the world that creates a lower than 100% book overall, they are probably wrong.

You might not be able to prove unconditionally that a system works without stating assumptions as facts, but you can show with an ever increasing level of confidence that it does, to the point where it would be completely irrational to assume it doesn't work.

REM
I most certainly concur that martingale, in any form or manner, is the road to ruin.
What I mean by a price being reasonable, is that the overround is minimal.
Investor
If a system is based on a number of assumptions/observations I agree that it needs to be checked and refined ad nauseam.
Some people might in fact call this backfitting, but I won't go that far with you.
You sound as if you know how to avoid that deathtrap approach to analysis.
But I am actually talking about system(s) that might exist that actually have a core, mathematical certainty to their structure. Something that is based neither on subjective evaluations or opinions.
Such a system does not need continual refining and adjusting.
As far as your example of betting on variances of prices between bookies, this is best done in an arbing sense by backing one and laying the other. Then it doesn't matter wheher value is involved on either side.
Taking an absolute view on which bookie prices are correct is just another value type bet to me and, as such, useless in the long run probably.

Maybe some can, believe it or not.
You obviously need prices to make the whole thing work, but any " reasonable" prices will do.
I don't think you're really grasping the point I'm trying to make.
Take card counting at BJ.
At its core , there lies a mathematical certainty. That is if you know the cards that have been dealt out, then the probabilities of certain of those reamaining appearing at key moments change accordingly.
Ignore how you apply it, stake it etc. These things require individual skills, but the maths remains unchallengeable. The probilities change in your favour.
Now until the mid 1950's , when a certain Californian university professor, first started using this in casinos to great success, nobody had ever apparently heard or thought of this very simple mathematical flaw in the game before.
In retrospect, it looks so obvious as to be unbelievable that this could have been so.
After all BJ had been around for a long time and no books or papers had been published on card counting.
These things happen all the time.
Current expansion of internet sports betting will not be any different. It will create unknown opportunities.Somewhere, someone will be seeing something blatantly obvious if and when it is revealed in due course. But then and only then.
Now don't confuse the BJ analogy with the fact that it is an example of betting on value. I agree. But again that's not the essential point I'm making.

Can't say that I really understand your point.

Agarsseee, I beg to differ.
Mr Investor, If the away team has a much higher goal superiority to the home team, surely it is more likely to win by 0-2 than 0-1.  For instance, if the away team has a goal superiority of 1.5 over the home team and the over/under goals line is 3.5, then, using the Poisson Formula, the chance of 0-1 is 3.9% and of 0-2 is 6.8%.  I know that the Poisson Distribution can only be used as a rough guide, but it is unlikely to be that far out.  But anyway, I find it easier to just think of Chelsea playing away: They don't seem prepared to settle for winning by the odd goal, at home or away: They just keep on going!