General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 342 comments are related to the topic:
Impossible to win long-term by BACKING in football
Impossible to win long-term by BACKING in football
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 342
|
By:
marksman..i bet he is doing ok ..i mean he cant lose much ,
since this thread ..if im green ...then i will lay the 1.04 and under, it works out only a very small % of winnings , havent kept score , but it has come up ..enough to keep doing it , ...if i looked at it the other way .. i would be sick laying out say £500 to win potentially a tenner or so....and lose ! |
|
By:
also ..it keeps interest in game if balanced green
|
|
By:
Takes one to know one K ?
|
|
By:
You would know about that. Still using that ''intelligent''
infallible staking plan ? |
|
By:
FAFH, perhaps you could pass on to
Plechy your 'intelligent, infallible' staking plan, in case he needs it. No? |
|
By:
childish response...enough said me thinks
|
|
By:
Well you have to admit, and sort of admire, that K is not on here for some warm, fuzzy reason of making new friends.
Also he is totally non-discriminatory. He picks on everybody. |
|
By:
 FFS chaps, time on planet Earth is short, use it wisely. |
|
By:
Well you have to admit, and sort of admire, that K is not on here for some warm, fuzzy reason of making new friends
Exactly what you seem to be on here for it would seem FAFH. |
|
By:
Absolutely.
Sad innit ? |
|
By:
Btw K, you can from now on, if you wish, not call me by my chatname, you, and you alone, can just call me Mr. Nice Guy.
OK ? |
|
By:
FineAsFrogHair : 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. Nice post that FAFH, I'm a value believer but also have an open mind. I've monitored 2 methods in the footy markets over the last year that involve placing a bet at a certain time of the game, which would mean taking the available odds at the correct price/poor value, never good value, one of which would have shown a 3.5k profit to £10 stakes (after comm) over the last 12 months of in-play matches, and the other 4.5k. Now whether that can be labled as back fitting I don't know, but there is certainly no element of value involved in either method. As such it's hard to work out why it has worked for so long, but given the long time frame do you guys think it's likely to continue or more likely to drop dead? :) |
|
By:
I've read that quite often the so-called wizards of the stock market, the hedge fund managers, indulge in strategies that just work, but they don't know exactly why.
They activate the strategies first, and then maybe some time down the line work out why they're successful, or not, as the case may be. I suggest you should start doing the same. You'll learn more about your strategies by implementing them live, than by endlessly paper trading them. |
|
By:
I agree with Mr Nice Guy, as in my experience (there I go again) paper trading simply doesn't work. Also in my view, if there is no logical reason for a method winning, it will correct itself.
|
|
By:
It seems the desire to debate is undiminished this fine morning.
Backfitting data is by no means a crime, although many will sneer at it. I discovered one of my most profitable racing strategies that way and would probably have overlooked it otherwise. The results grabbed my attention and eventually I began to understand its significance (and it is blindingly obvious). I think that until you understand what you have found, you have no way of knowing what you have, how to refine it, how best to use or even how long it will last. Sure, you can also do it the conventional way and theorise first, then test - but you are limited by how well you can theorise. I recall some years back reading about a major chemical company who employed many highly trained scientists, but also a few self taught mavericks. While the trained scientists had more knowledge, they had a similar and narrower approach to work, while the self taught would go down all sorts of crazy avenues - ocaisonally hitting upon gems. As for BJ, it is not correct to say there was a mathematical flaw. Casinos understood the maths perfectly. It was the structure of the game (use of cards) that allowed someone who was determined enough to turn a game of (slightly loaded) chance into a game of (slightly reverse loaded) skill. Of course, these were the days before random number generaators. What you here on Betfair is a mass of people placing money on events using the structure as designed by betfair. There are many tales of those who have profited from targetting the structure, or the movement of money, rather than concentrate on the event. Finally, I leave you with this little analysis that sobered me up many years ago. It was refering to bookies and horse racing, but I think it's still relevant now, punter v punter: There are only three ways to win: 1. Be a better judge; 2. Have a better system; 3. Have better information. Now I must return to the real world... |
|
By:
There are only three ways to win:
1. Be a better judge; 2. Have a better system; 3. Have better information I don't agree with the third. |
|
By:
Why not?
|
|
By:
Cheers guys, as REM suggests it's just something that I've noticed whilst trawling through my books of in-play match stats. It has no logic that I can see as of yet, but am looking deeper.
|
|
By:
come on now ladies put the handbags away,getting back to the original title i believe the original post is now true.i used to do quite well backing good teams to win however the tactics,fitness and general levelling in standards of teams over the past few years has definately complicated matters and especially this season i think the bookies will be delighted with their returns from football
|
|
By:
Why not ? Because I believe it to be a myth. Who decides what is the best information ? I believe only what I see, and very little of what I am told.
|
|
By:
fast pictures
knowing about preperation knowing about injuries knowing how much competitors are trying there's all sorts of information, esp inside information, that gives connected people an advantage, esp true in horse racing |
|
By:
I agree regards horse racing and for those reasons I play only on first class racing, leaving the rest to others.
|
|
By:
I think it prudent to consider the possibility that there are people who have better/more/unique information than myself and indeed than most of us, and that may be feeding in to the market.
Bookies will use systems, experts and information to protect their position. |
|
By:
I prefer horse racing simply because it might be fixed and that their is, hence, a genuine belief amongst the public that it is fixed to some extent. This makes the odds go all over the place, and people (sometimes) wrongly interpret market moves as being significant. This is most apparent in the ante post markets, where market moves are exagerrated on Betfair and, with the lack of any concrete information, people tend to fill in the gaps from these price fluctuations. There is an old saying that if people knew a race was fixed (but not which way it was fixed) betting turnover would be greater than on a race which was known to be run "straight". Looking back to that golden age, before the premium charge came in, I think that this was the main reason that I was able to make money on the horses. As for football, I am not convinced that I can make money betting on it. The problem is that each game is perceived as being straight, even though it might not be. This means that market moves are not interpreted as being significant, even though they might be due to fiddling. With such tight margins it only requires a few fixed games to scupper the most well thought out strategy.
I do believe that the English Premier League is pretty much on the level, but outside of that, (league 1,2 anything Italian, Greek etc.) is subject to corruption. |
|
By:
Do you have the slightest proof that the majority of football games, being in your words all non- UK Premier league games, are subject to corruption.
That is, after all, a pretty amazing statement. |
|
By:
Minor leagues are just full on tall , thick players with little skill and who don't work hard enough to develop skills.
They are just incapable of taking scoring chances .....nothing to do with "corruption" ...they just can't play the beautiful game! |
|
By:
I'm not saying that most games outside of the Premier League are subject to corruption. But that a significant number are. Most of the fiddling goes undetected. But there was a game (season before last) in which about 5 (I can't remember the exact number) Accrington Stanley players placed bets on a game in which their team played in. It was later revealed that one of these players, after being transferred to Chester City (which no longer exists), continued to bet on football games and bet on one game, involving Chester City, in which he also played in.
This scandal became apparent, because the players used their own betting accounts. So just think how many get away with it by betting in cash or getting others to put their bets on for them. |
|
By:
Footballers are only human ...and people like to gamble.
They don't have to be "corrupt" betting on a match they are playing in. Would have thought that some criminal element could put pressure on some players to do things in a game linked to betting. This is probably more likely than players just having a gamble on a game. There are just too many thick players in game ....that is the "problem". Change that and you will get a higher standard of football. |
|
By:
im sure the odd fiddle goes on ,
e.g bet on the next new manager etc ,friends getting the nod ... but players nowadays get paid so much ...it really isnt worth their while , just because it happens in horse racing doesnt mean it happens in every sport |
|
By:
e.g bet on the next new manager etc ,friends getting the nod ...
Why is that a fiddle ? A few years ago, a school teacher had the wisdom to have some money on Howard Wilkinson (to get the Leeds job), after overhearing his daughter (Wilkinson's) telling her friend that she heard her dad on the phone talking to the effect he had the job. I think he had about £50 at 14/1 and nobody saw anything wrong with that. |
|
By:
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05
Replies: 3540 06 Oct 10 15:26 Why not ? Because I believe it to be a myth. Who decides what is the best information ? I believe only what I see, and very little of what I am told.  |
|
By:
Have I rendered you speechless ?
|
|
By:
kenilworth Joined: 04 Nov 05
Replies: 3543 06 Oct 10 14:34 There are only three ways to win: 1. Be a better judge; 2. Have a better system; 3. Have better information I don't agree with the third. Your Wilkinson anecdote is a perfect example. |
|
By:
You could starve to death waiting for something
like that. Getting the result of the race before anyone else. |
|
By:
lol..ken is never wrong ..even when you quote him
|
|
By:
I wouldn't put ''knowing the result before anyone else'' as
''better information'' but I suppose some would, even though nothing like that has ever happened to you (or me). Like I said, you could starve to death waiting. I rate 'inside info' in the same category as intellegemt staking plans, a la 'Mr Nice Guy', no one knows about them. |
|
By:
didnt hear about harry red , getting his inlaw frank lampard to get french bookie to back him to be next pompey manager ?
only came to light cause he wasnt bothered about his salary in his contract , didnt need to of course...made 4 years wages in one bet !, i heard a few next managers bets ....some from your neck of the woods ...oh thats harry patch isnt it !...lol |
|
By:
Give it up K.
You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about ( which is good for mr betting wise). And I'm obviously not going to reaveal how I operate, as it would be totally self defeating. I simply make the general statement thst staking does not mandatorily have to be linked to finding value in the odds being offered, and then staking more or less in relation to that perceived value edge.. Take what I say on board or leave it. You chose to leave it. Fine. But don't assume that all punters approach things your way, which you seem to imply is the only way. That's a mite arrogant to say the least. |
|
By:
---( for me betting wise ).
|
|
By:
Mr Nice Guy, I am not in the slightest bit interested in
what you do, win or lose, and I am more than happy that no one is interested in what I do, but you were the one that mentioned the magigal, intelligent, infallible staking plan, which I know, and you know, doesn't exist. Am I wrong ? Is there such a staking plan ? Gibmark, don't believe what you read in the 'red tops', and even if what say is is true, what good is that to you or me ? |