This whole concept of trading in and out of betting prices on the same market. Unless both the trade in and the trade out prices are good value, I just cannot understand how it can be of long term benefit mathematically. In the case of trading out below value to offset profits with losses in the same market to reduce commission, surely the amount of commission saved will be less than the profits given up. In the case of trading out below value just to cut losses, surely the losses avoided will be less than the unexpected turnaround gains if you had not cut and run. I can see the argumments for trading out if the opposite postion price appears to be good value, but not otherwise. I can also see that there might be times that better value opportunities present themselves and you need to free up capital to take advantage of them. What am I missing in all this ?
Not right now. WI at this time of the year always. On and off though. Getting more off than on these days. Don't like too much what I see there these days. The fun has gone out of the country imo.
Not right now. WI at this time of the year always.On and off though. Getting more off than on these days.Don't like too much what I see there these days.The fun has gone out of the country imo.
yeah didnt bet on barca tonight because it was a cup match. spanish cup can be very dodgy. although they were playing a third division team so even their reserves should beat them. i looked at the scoresheet and pedro was playing, so they had at least one first teamer playing.
yeah didnt bet on barca tonight because it was a cup match. spanish cup can be very dodgy. although they were playing a third division team so even their reserves should beat them. i looked at the scoresheet and pedro was playing, so they had at leas
Real lost to a bunch of no hopers in last seasons spanish cup. real should beat hercules this weekend but hercules have already produced some surprise results so i will be leaving that one alone i think.
Real lost to a bunch of no hopers in last seasons spanish cup. real should beat hercules this weekend but hercules have already produced some surprise results so i will be leaving that one alone i think.
yes The Mgt, a good example of the 1.1x betting you were saying that you don't do "
like Alcorcon last season
**Avocado you're one classy guy aren't you??
"Real held to a 0:0 draw tonight. "yes The Mgt, a good example of the 1.1x betting you were saying that you don't do "like Alcorcon last season**Avocado you're one classy guy aren't you??
jimmy69 Joined: 11 Apr 01 Replies: 11207 27 Oct 10 00:17 What's this word trader that everybody uses? It's a posh word for gambler isn't it?
Gambling creates risk. Trading transfers risk.
jimmy69 Joined: 11 Apr 01Replies: 11207 27 Oct 10 00:17 What's this word trader that everybody uses? It's a posh word for gambler isn't it?Gambling creates risk.Trading transfers risk.
Bayes, I was wondering about x-games. I saw a service announcement that betfair had decided to bot this themselves. That's when I realized some people must have been making some serious money from this. That must have been the perfect thing to bot, as their is probably no advantage whatsoever to playing manually.
Bayes, I was wondering about x-games. I saw a service announcement that betfair had decided to bot this themselves. That's when I realized some people must have been making some serious money from this. That must have been the perfect thing to bot, a
I can answer that Investor. Bayes was making good money on Xgames as a mkt. maker. Then he got unceremoniously dispossessed by BF out of the blue. No apparent consultation, no apparent thank you for seeding the mkts. in their infancy. They used the lame excuse that they couldn't always rely on the external bots to provide liquidity at all the opening and interim stages of the games 24/7. Hence they came in, took over with their own mkt. making bots, and the rest is history. And now they're making the easy guaranteed money out of the games, by acting as mkt. makers at absolutely unconditional below value odds. Now moving on to matters on this thread. I have one final nagging question, not just to you but to anybody else reasonably qualified to answer it. ( do I hear more groans from out there?). When you exploit what you calculate to be a good value price, are you axiomatically assuming ( on a zero sum basis) that the counterparty is either a) a rank amateur who doesn't know anything about value, or b) is a fellow pro who has got his sums wrong. Or are you saying that it is not necessarily a zero sum situation. That is, the price can be good value in fact for both of you simultaneously, as you might or probably do have different book exposures, different comm. rates, different P_/L profiles etc etc.
I can answer that Investor.Bayes was making good money on Xgames as a mkt. maker.Then he got unceremoniously dispossessed by BF out of the blue.No apparent consultation, no apparent thank you for seeding the mkts. in their infancy.They used the lame
FaFH, I stopped reading your posts a while back, but interesting stuff from others. Helped me focus on why I win and most people don't.
One reason is that I understand what 'random' means, which makes me more risk tolerant than most.
Kuken, I checked out eviews, because one problem I know I have is what price to trade out of a winning position especially in tennis. Unfortunately it's overkill for what I want - a simple formula to tell me what price player X should be if they are 1 set up, a game break up, etc.
FaFH, I stopped reading your posts a while back, but interesting stuff from others. Helped me focus on why I win and most people don't.One reason is that I understand what 'random' means, which makes me more risk tolerant than most.Kuken, I checked o
pxb Funny that. I always wait for yours breathlessly. They always have some sort of outrageous sentence or phrase in them. This one was " Helped me focus on why I win and most people don't". Great stuff. Keep'em coming.
pxbFunny that.I always wait for yours breathlessly.They always have some sort of outrageous sentence or phrase in them.This one was " Helped me focus on why I win and most people don't".Great stuff.Keep'em coming.
Another one I picked up on a while back, which I thought was a real beaut. I think it went something like " I moved in venture capital circles, before I became a pro gambler ". Maybe not your exact words, but pretty close not to matter. We have in fact sort of moved on a bit on here from automatically slagging each other other. So I confess I am being a bit regressive here. Sorry about that. But we all revert to type in the end I suppose.
Another one I picked up on a while back, which I thought was a real beaut.I think it went something like" I moved in venture capital circles, before I became a pro gambler ".Maybe not your exact words, but pretty close not to matter.We have in fact s
this is by now far from being a FAFH thread, he is only the OP and we have thousands of threads here that went on despite the OP, this threads belong to us, not the OP because unless the OP is talking to himself he has nothing to claim from this, but FAFH is a pretty good OP overall
pxb this is by now far from being a FAFH thread, he is only the OP and we have thousands of threads here that went on despite the OP, this threads belong to us, not the OP because unless the OP is talking to himself he has nothing to claim from this,
my vegetable friend, with your nickname and mine i would guess that just by the early clues, you are the the one that wants to be eaten.. i would say this a 1.01 busted
my vegetable friend, with your nickname and mine i would guess that just by the early clues, you are the the one that wants to be eaten.. i would say this a 1.01 busted
Actually pxb, that's an interesting thought. Is there an actual, or even a potential, technical way to filter out the contributions of any particular contibutor or grouping of contibutors on a thread? I'm not a technophile, so I really don't know the answer. If no, and it would be possible, it might appeal to someone to suggest it to BF. Not me though, as I might then be missing out on so many priceless gems of humour, both intended and non-intended.
Actually pxb, that's an interesting thought.Is there an actual, or even a potential, technical way to filter out the contributions of any particular contibutor or grouping of contibutors on a thread?I'm not a technophile, so I really don't know the a
FINE AS FROG HAIR 27 Oct 10 02:41 [...] I have one final nagging question, not just to you but to anybody else reasonably qualified to answer it. ( do I hear more groans from out there?). When you exploit what you calculate to be a good value price, are you axiomatically assuming ( on a zero sum basis) that the counterparty is either a) a rank amateur who doesn't know anything about value, or b) is a fellow pro who has got his sums wrong. Or are you saying that it is not necessarily a zero sum situation. That is, the price can be good value in fact for both of you simultaneously, as you might or probably do have different book exposures, different comm. rates, different P_/L profiles etc etc.
That's an interesting question. Difficult to answer though. I'd say it's a mix of all the above. Not necessarily a pro that's got his sums wrong though. In the same way that my style of betting throws up value opportunities for others on some occasions (that could theoretically be systematically exploited), the same is almost certainly true of much bigger operators. So I could get value from someone who might be making 10x as much as me, just because for every guy like me taking value, there might be ten guys taking rubbish odds at an earlier or later time.
It is possible (but rare) that a bet is good for both parties even when one is giving away value (ignoring the risk management/leverage reason mentioned earlier). An example would be a market where Player A has layed a selection at 2.00 for a liability of £2,000. There are no other selections he is interested in. Now time has passed and this selection is very unlikely to win and Player B wants to lay at 501. The fair price is 1001. If this market settles in 2 days time, and Player A thinks that it will be difficult getting matched above 501, he could put £4 to back the selection, freeing up his capital.
Roughly speaking, what's happening is that player A pays the equivalent of a 0.2% fee to get access to £2,000 two days early and eliminate the 0.1% chance of loss. If player A makes an average return far exceeding 0.05% per day, and player B has a large amount of capital sitting in the account unused due to the time of season etc. both players benefit.
^ a bit contrived I know [;)]
FINE AS FROG HAIR 27 Oct 10 02:41 [...]I have one final nagging question, not just to you but to anybody else reasonably qualified to answer it. ( do I hear more groans from out there?).When you exploit what you calculate to be a good value pric
It's more a last resort when there's nothing better to do with my cash. I like my money to be doing something useful rather than just sitting there, even if the returns are small.
It's more a last resort when there's nothing better to do with my cash.I like my money to be doing something useful rather than just sitting there, even if the returns are small.
Good answer Investor. I really am astounded by you sometimes on the apparent time and effort you very often put in answering not only me but others. You sound like you must be pretty busy in the other areas of your real betting, as I would assume that your methodology is fairly time consuming and yet you do find time to respond in quite a degree of detail. Very impressive and generous. You're getting to be just like your IT buddy on this forum, namely Escapee.
Good answer Investor.I really am astounded by you sometimes on the apparent time and effort you very often put in answering not only me but others.You sound like you must be pretty busy in the other areas of your real betting, as I would assume that
Investor I can only assume that sometimes, but not necessarily all the time, it must somehow be in your own self-intersts to explore these particular types of points and questions. If so, then I don't feel quite so bad about asking them relentlessly.
InvestorI can only assume that sometimes, but not necessarily all the time, it must somehow be in your own self-intersts to explore these particular types of points and questions.If so, then I don't feel quite so bad about asking them relentlessly.
FATH: When you exploit what you calculate to be a good value price, are you axiomatically assuming ( on a zero sum basis) that the counterparty is either a) a rank amateur who doesn't know anything about value, or b) is a fellow pro who has got his sums wrong.
Generally I'd assume that the market has a significant share of price-copiers and inveterate unskilled gamblers in it, but there are many instances (v. often following momentum or trading in high-volatility markets) where I'd understand what I was doing in terms of selling high-priced insurance.
In these circs. I've often bought the same kind of insurance m/s and reversed my initial position.
But it works out as more lucrative to begin offering prices on certain runners at the end of pronounced trends.
FATH: When you exploit what you calculate to be a good value price, are you axiomatically assuming ( on a zero sum basis) that the counterparty is eithera) a rank amateur who doesn't know anything about value, orb) is a fellow pro who has got his sum
Tried trading but every time I found value I held my position. When I laid at value and it shortened I would put more on and when it blew out I kept saying to myself I have terrific value here I'll let it ride.
How much more satisfying can it get than working value out and being right more often than the odds would suggest.
Tried trading but every time I found value I held my position.When I laid at value and it shortened I would put more on and when it blew outI kept saying to myself I have terrific value here I'll let it ride.How much more satisfying can it get than w
I got up early to do some homework and ended up reading this! You lot need to get a bit more sleep.
Going back to the issue of price assumptions about others within the market, I wouldn't particularly concern myself with whether they were a mug/expert or any combination in between. I do believe that people can get it wrong no matter what their approach is. If I perceive there to be a mistake for whatever reason then I will avail myself of what is on offer.
I got up early to do some homework and ended up reading this! You lot need to get a bit more sleep.Going back to the issue of price assumptions about others within the market, I wouldn't particularly concern myself with whether they were a mug/expert
loserschaselosers Joined: 30 Jan 02 Replies: 397 26 Oct 10 23:39 Just football . When I have time I would like to extend to tennis.
Funnily enough, this is exactly what I do on tennis and looking at extending to football.
loserschaselosers Joined: 30 Jan 02Replies: 397 26 Oct 10 23:39 Just football . When I have time I would like to extend to tennis.Funnily enough, this is exactly what I do on tennis and looking at extending to football.
wannabe vegetable gay "Avocado" CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THREAD:
thread started 23 Oct 21:56 GMT by FINE AS FROG HAIR (FAFH)
and here we have the first contribution from "MASTER MIND VEGETABLE" Avocado
..almost 3 days after...
1 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 01:06 Frog it seems everyone on here thinks you are a total ass candle. Why is that?
2 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:07 No offence taken buddy. I just felt like calling someone an ass candle.
3 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:08 I haven't had to put on a suit and tie and go into some boring office building for the last 30 yyears or so and you have had to ?
I am employed by La Cosa Nostra.
4 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:34 Frog i also let my bets run rather than trading out. I'm a backer, football match odds only.
5 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:36 I only bet on serie a, la liga, premiership, champs league and major internationals. Occassionally latter stages of fa and carling cup.
6 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:41 I just back odds on favourites to win. I used to lay underdogs too but this season I've just been backing favourites to win. I don't do any other markets.
7 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:42 Do u do the goals markets?
8 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:43 What kind of bets do u do?
9 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 02:46 Where are u located?
10 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 03:21 Too many long words. Can we just stick to saying things like "the" and "and" so that I can understand.
11 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 04:33 Frog, if you are looking for any insight from Lori then you are looking in the wrong place. The guy has admitted that he only bets three figure sums on here whereas I regularly bet five figures.
12 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 04:34 With regards to mathematics, that is for squares and has no relevance when betting on football matches. It's mainly common sense and having the balls to back your judgment.
13 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 04:46 you're right to ignore me frog because im lying
14 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 05:02 Frog I am betting SEVEN FIGURE SUMS on here. I live in a mansion.
... SOME MORE USELESS REMARKS LIKE THE NEXT ONE
15 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 07:54 Do u ever back chelsea and man utd?
16 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 08:04 Yeah it makes sense for English punters to bet on the prem as that is what we have most information on. I do dabble in la liga and serie a as well though but have given the minor league's a miss for the last year or so, don't trust them.
^^THIS LAST TWO POSTS ARE A JEWEL^^
:::::: NOW BREAK... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF DAY AND HOURS :::::
new post:
17 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 00:41 Frog this thread is anything but interesting. Everyone on here just makes vague comments about what they do because they are afraid of giving away their "edge".
18 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 00:45 Frog you are asking for information but you're unwilling to give any in return. That is the problem with this forum.
19 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 01:00 It's only not gambling if you know for sure what the outcome will be. If you're not entirely sure then that's a gamble.
^^^^ANOTHER TOP NOTCH STATEMENT^^^^
20 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 01:02 lol actually rocket i was talking about you. On msn i told you what i was betting on but u told me very little.
----AFTER MANY NO IMPORTANCE POSTS WE GET ANOTHER TOP NOTCH ONE----
21 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 01:47 Can u lend me 100k?
22 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 01:52 Real lost to a bunch of no hopers in last seasons spanish cup. real should beat hercules this weekend but hercules have already produced some surprise results so i will be leaving that one alone i think.
^^^^ANOTHER GEM^^^^^
23 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 01:53 Odds on real and barca are very stingy after they both steamrollered the league last season.
---AND AFTER ALL THIS WELL EDUCATED RESPONSES I MADE THIS POST---
Lusitano71 27 Oct 10 01:57 "Real held to a 0:0 draw tonight. "
yes The Mgt, a good example of the 1.1x betting you were saying that you don't do "
like Alcorcon last season
**Avocado you're one classy guy aren't you??
---RESPONSE---
24 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 01:59 Yes Luistano, I am a classy guy. Nice of you to notice.
---my response---
Lusitano71 27 Oct 10 02:11 i did notice it, i just had some doubts for a moment
---AND NOW THE GRAND FINALE---
25 - Avocado 27 Oct 10 03:38 Luistano why do you do gay things with men?
Lusitano71 27 Oct 10 03:43 my vegetable friend, with your nickname and mine i would guess that just by the early clues, you are the the one that wants to be eaten.. i would say this a 1.01 busted
Avocado 27 Oct 10 06:21 CoolCoolCool Cool Cool CoolCoolCool
Cool Cool Cool Cool CoolCoolCool
CoolCoolCool Cool Cool Cool Cool
CoolCoolCool Cool
(This is me Lusitano71) NOW MY BOTTOM LINE IS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR THIS FRAUD OF A GUY THAT HAS A STARTING DATE OF MAY 2010 BUT USING A MORE OR LESS OLD NICKNAME... NOW BASED ON WHAT YOU READ WHAT WAS THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS BRAIN DEAD VEGETABLE???
wannabe vegetable gay "Avocado" CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE THREAD:thread started 23 Oct 21:56 GMT by FINE AS FROG HAIR (FAFH)and here we have the first contribution from "MASTER MIND VEGETABLE" Avocado ..almost 3 days after...1 - Avocado 26 Oct 10 01:06
Re-reading Investor's reply at 4.21 on my question about the different views of the value of a price to each counterparty, is his example of when it may be good for both parties actually correct. For sure Player A has totally eliminated his liability on the original lay by trading out at the poor value price, but only in his own books. In the books of BF, that is his account with them, they will still require him to have the required capital sitting in his account to cover the original lay, right up to the time till the event is over and the result is known. They treat the opposing lays and bets as separate wagers up until then and only offset them account wise on the final settlement date. Thus he cannot use the theoretically "freed up " capital in his books until then. So he has gained nothing opportunity cost wise, has he ? Am I correct in this? I'm not a trader remember.
Re-reading Investor's reply at 4.21 on my question about the different views of the value of a price to each counterparty, is his example of when it may be good for both parties actually correct.For sure Player A has totally eliminated his liability
Shiraz I agree, but in this case he did the lay first to create a liabilty of 2000 pounds and so isn't he now stuck with that, on BF's books at least, till settlement date, regardless of theoretically eliminating it by betting the other way ?
ShirazI agree, but in this case he did the lay first to create a liabilty of 2000 pounds and so isn't he now stuck with that, on BF's books at least, till settlement date, regardless of theoretically eliminating it by betting the other way ?
It varies slightly in different markets, such as tournament winner in tennis or World Cup, but in H2H markets the only funds you tie up are those of your liability.
It varies slightly in different markets, such as tournament winner in tennis or World Cup, but in H2H markets the only funds you tie up are those of your liability.
But isn't that what I'm saying ?. He actually has a zeo theoretical liability, but for practical matters, like using his account funds for further trading, he still has a liability of 2000 pounds up to the day of settlement.
But isn't that what I'm saying ?.He actually has a zeo theoretical liability, but for practical matters, like using his account funds for further trading, he still has a liability of 2000 pounds up to the day of settlement.
You can test it without much trouble, just go to a H2H market (e.g. Tennis / Open Sud de France / First Round / Simon v Mahut), then place a bet to back Simon at 2.0 then a lay at 1.20 for the same amount (e.g. 100), your account will only show a reduction in funds equal to the amount of 100, not 120.
You can test it without much trouble, just go to a H2H market (e.g. Tennis / Open Sud de France / First Round / Simon v Mahut), then place a bet to back Simon at 2.0 then a lay at 1.20 for the same amount (e.g. 100), your account will only show a red
BF don't net out your liabilities when not all potential winners are available to bet on. BF could easily avoid this confusing situation by merely adding 'Any other winner' to the list.
BF don't net out your liabilities when not all potential winners are available to bet on. BF could easily avoid this confusing situation by merely adding 'Any other winner' to the list.
Shiraz So you're telling me that if I had 100 pounds in by BF account, I could make a bet for 100 pounds on a player, and then come along a few minutes later with effectively zero available funds in my account, and lay the same player for a new liability of 120 pounds, and they would let me do that.? Is that really the case ?. Are you absolutely sure about this ? I find it too hard to believe. If others come on here and confirm what you're saying, I will of course accept it as being correct. But until then, please forgive me for having doubts as to the veracity of all this. It flies in the face of all logic imo.
ShirazSo you're telling me that if I had 100 pounds in by BF account, I could make a bet for 100 pounds on a player, and then come along a few minutes later with effectively zero available funds in my account, and lay the same player for a new liabil
Avocado Joined: 06 May 10 Replies: 3372 27 Oct 10 01:02 lol actually rocket i was talking about you. On msn i told you what i was betting on but u told me very little.
What did you expect
Avocado Joined: 06 May 10Replies: 3372 27 Oct 10 01:02 lol actually rocket i was talking about you. On msn i told you what i was betting on but u told me very little. What did you expect
What price most of us on here immediately google Turing Test before exposing ourselves publicly as ignoramuses.? Maybe we should perhaps respect Avocado for his honesty and modesty. Just a thought. You know me. Always trying to see the good in people.
What price most of us on here immediately google Turing Test before exposing ourselves publicly as ignoramuses.?Maybe we should perhaps respect Avocado for his honesty and modesty.Just a thought.You know me.Always trying to see the good in people.
"theft" is a strong word. It's within the rules. Personally I think it is theft and the perpetrators should be castrated. It seems a lot better this season, though is still apparent sometimes. I've not been able to deduce any pattern, other than Real Madrid home games which seem to stick out.
The point I am making, tongue in cheek, is that there are so many other facts more important than "value". However, the market will trend towards "value" as an underlying driving force. But that driving force is a consensus of opinion, not a consensus of fact.
"theft" is a strong word. It's within the rules. Personally I think it is theft and the perpetrators should be castrated. It seems a lot better this season, though is still apparent sometimes. I've not been able to deduce any pattern, other than
I will own up that before coming on this forum, I didn't know what either a Turing Test of an Ass Candle was. So I have educated myself, to some extent. However, I can't really see how the Turing Test would be useful to me.
I will own up that before coming on this forum, I didn't know what either a Turing Test of an Ass Candle was. So I have educated myself, to some extent.However, I can't really see how the Turing Test would be useful to me.
FINE AS FROG HAIR Joined: 12 Mar 07 Replies: 1054 27 Oct 10 07:46 Re-reading Investor's reply at 4.21 on my question about the different views of the value of a price to each counterparty, is his example of when it may be good for both parties actually correct. For sure Player A has totally eliminated his liability on the original lay by trading out at the poor value price, but only in his own books. In the books of BF, that is his account with them, they will still require him to have the required capital sitting in his account to cover the original lay, right up to the time till the event is over and the result is known. They treat the opposing lays and bets as separate wagers up until then and only offset them account wise on the final settlement date. Thus he cannot use the theoretically "freed up " capital in his books until then. So he has gained nothing opportunity cost wise, has he ? Am I correct in this? I'm not a trader remember.
He has gained. He gets to utilze his £1k stake. It's true that he does still have to wait for his £1k profit, so he gets to use half of the total.
Betfair allow you to use the money you have freed up by trading out, but not any profit, as the whole thing could theoretically be voided, so in a strict sense, when you green up you haven't guaranteed a profit, but you have guaranteed that you can't lose (provided you don't place further trades in the market).
FINE AS FROG HAIR Joined: 12 Mar 07Replies: 1054 27 Oct 10 07:46 Re-reading Investor's reply at 4.21 on my question about the different views of the value of a price to each counterparty, is his example of when it may be good for both parties actual
OK I get it now. I guess I was confused in the original post where you said that he got to use 2000 pounds of capital earlier than the settlement date. All is clear. Thanks again.
OK I get it now.I guess I was confused in the original post where you said that he got to use 2000 pounds of capital earlier than the settlement date.All is clear.Thanks again.
Betfairy I really do like that last closing sentence of yours. " But that driving force will be a consensus of opinion, not a consensus of fact ". Excellently put imo.
BetfairyI really do like that last closing sentence of yours." But that driving force will be a consensus of opinion, not a consensus of fact ".Excellently put imo.
Regarding earlier argument relating to Market Maker advantage, in a two- possible-outcome event ( example given by Feck N Eejit with tennis,same principal as NFL, snooker etc)i still cannot see how this could beat commission( say the 5% for the average site user with losing account). EXAMPLE: player A serving at score of 15-15 in game, "correct" price 1.33 to back 1.34 to lay, you put up a lay at 1.28 just before point begins, player A wins the point as anticipated and "correct" price is now 1.30 to back and 1.31 to lay. Even if your lay at 1.28 got taken in an overreaction immediately after the point, surely the 5% commission would negate this, and you are unlikely to lay, lets say, 1.24 in a dramatic overreaction (bar a very volatile moment of play in a womens game more than likely, when odds are close to evens for both players). Am i missing the point?. Or is the poster saying back player A as he wins the point scooping up all the 1.33, 1.32 and 1.31? (still not overcoming commission, and something available surely to just a single big player (or "courtsider" as the tennis folk might say). For arguments sake lets say "correct" price is indeed correct. Surely the typical overreaction that can be layed (just taking tennis as that was the original sport being discussed) is not enough in the long run to beat commission, even if it is a bet at value. Perhaps for those paying 2% this is a percentage that is surmountable this way. What am i missing? (no username puns necessary!). Any explanation?
Regarding earlier argument relating to Market Maker advantage, in a two- possible-outcome event ( example given by Feck N Eejit with tennis,same principal as NFL, snooker etc)i still cannot see how this could beat commission( say the 5% for the avera
Should also point out that due to nature of above, laying or backing a couple of ticks better off than "correct" price, if you were then to try to immediately lock in profit at the "correct" price when market has reverted to it, that would mean submitting bet at that exact point that YOU then become the fall guy betting as the next point begins putting yourself at the mercy of whatever happens during the next point!. Should have mentioned that in above post.
Should also point out that due to nature of above, laying or backing a couple of ticks better off than "correct" price, if you were then to try to immediately lock in profit at the "correct" price when market has reverted to it, that would mean subm