1. Given that once a system is sold (effectively enters the public domain) the edge is lost very rapidly.  So the seller would have to be sure of getting at least as much as he/she would have got had they continued to use it themselves.  All systems decay over time (as the market works out what they are doing).  So I would say that assuming the system makes close to £100k and no more, then 2.5 - 5 years worth of potential income would be fair value.  So the selling price I guess would be in the order of £250-500k.

2. Nothing.  As already said, once a system is sold it rapidly loses it's edge, and so therefore is worthless.

The disparity of these two positions means that worthwhile systems are never sold.  The systems that are sold are worthless and so must be bought by mugs.

It's not quite true that all systems decay over time. Some exploit inefficiencies that are built into the exchange model. The only way they can stop working is if the structure of the betting exchange itself is altered.
It's simply a case of who can get there first. These ideas will work as long as the site functionality remains as it is.

Btw DFC how do you predict in any form or manner what is going to happen in a football match ?
Does anything in a football match ever pan out as predicted.
Sure the eventual winner might be predictable more often than not by those with a good knowledge base, but surely even those can't predict how the actual match will play out in terms of who goes ahead first, who gets a bad penalty call against them, which team loses a player early on to a red card etc etc.
The permutations are endless surely.
How do you predict all that before a game starts or even during a game ?

You don't. I trade IR football without an iota of knowledge of the teams, and often without watching the action. I know nothing about football, but I do understand how the various markets move according to the time elapsed, and the scoreline. That knowledge is sufficient for me to make money on virtually every single game I trade.

Two questions:

1) For how much would you sell you system which earns £100K pa?
2) How much would you pay for a system which earns £100K pa?

I could write a bot that makes my strategies worthless, so as such they are worthless if sold.

Basically, it is not the case.

There is still a considerable amount of inefficiency in these markets. This is probably because, as Bayes has said, there is not a huge amount of money to be made here (hundreds of thousands, but not millions), and so the teams of maths/physics PhDs who have ironed out many of the inefficiencies in the financial markets have not bothered doing so here (yet!).

Come on Contrarian, that's not what I'm talking about.
Anybody can do those maths.
What you're saying is that you can find numerous possibilities in a match to ALWAYS do this at an overall net profit.
You could back at 1,5 and have the price go against you ( or doesn't this ever happen to you for some unexplained reason? )? Then you have to recover this loss from your later trades etc etc.

Contrarian
Your point about the inefficiencies of the soccer mkts. is interesting.
Could you illustrate this with an example of one small anomaly you have spotted, which you don't care to exploit because it is too minor and thus would be willing to tell us what it is on here.
Just so that we can see that these things exist if you look hard enough.
Not asking for any major secrets giveaway here mind you.

FAFH
Anybody can do those maths

On the contrary. There is considerable disagreement about what the best probability distribution is to model football scores. The most likely answer is that it is some sort of non-homogenous Poisson distribution. Exactly what this non-homogeneity consists in is extremely hard to work out.

Betting promotions make millions per year. I'm sure there are others who do, and perhaps make even more. Naturally they will tend to be very secretive about what they do.

Still, I get the point that even then the rewards are relatively small compared to a company operating successfully in financial markets.

the other, which I prefer, is to rely on the predictability of the interaction of the various markets related to a single sports event.

In other words - taking advantage of the price movements at certain "danger" points in a football match, eg: corners, free-kicks, etc.  I bet you are a taker of the high rebounds.

But the downside of Chelsea conceding (an unlikely) goal is a total loss.

Contrarian
That wasn't the maths I was talking about. I was referring to a post I saw, or it seems I imagined I saw from you about the maths of betting 10K at 1.50 and laying off at 1.49. That is simple.
On the other maths, if your points are that 1) they are inexact and are subject to subjective input 2) they are beyond the statistical modelling capabilities of most, then I would concur.
As such, that is why I question the basic claim being made continuously on here, that is not at all difficult for anybody, if he/she applies him/herself seriously, to make returns of over 20,000% pa on capital employed. I think, if it can be done at all, it will take a very special, mathematically gifted person to do it. Who those persons are, amongst all the "claimants " on here, I really don't know. Maybe you, maybe Bayes, maybe Aye Robot etc. We will probably never really know.
Anyway we are just going round in circles here.
You and others say that it can be done, with the " proof" being that you are doing it, and I remain to be convinced.

In other words - taking advantage of the price movements at certain "danger" points in a football match, eg: corners, free-kicks, etc.  I bet you are a taker of the high rebounds.

No. As I said earlier, I don't rely on TV pictures generally. And that sort of betting doesn't depend on intermarket relations.

FAFH,

As such, that is why I question the basic claim being made continuously on here, that is not at all difficult for anybody, if he/she applies him/herself seriously, to make returns of over 20,000% pa on capital employed.

Whoever said it was not at all difficult?

I don't consider what I do to be 'easy'. I have a DPhil, and imagine that several others who do the sort of modelling I do are similarly qualified.

I don't think so at all. I've said repeatedly that I think you're too lazy to do the work, and I stand by that.

I don't believe at all that it was a lighthearted suggestion as there's never been any other trace of humour in your posts.

In case there's any doubt on my stance, I think that almost anyone can win on here if they put in the work. Going to the beach and floating around on yachts is preferable to this, but it certainly isn't putting in the work.

As Amarillo Slim said many years ago - "It's a hard way to make an easy living"

There was an example of that during the early stages of the world cup matches.

The first 16 matches only produced 2 matches with over 2.5 goals, so when the 2nd round of 16 matches started, the over 2.5 price was inflated.

As it happens, 7 of the 2nd round matches produced over 2.5 goals at 3.2, 2.5, 3.0, 2.7, 2.6, 2.3 and 2.3, which were over inflated prices.

Trevh
That is a regression to the mean type approach.
Will that win long term, given the commission outtake.
Lori
Stop posting rubbish.
You know nothing of my work ethic.
You call my temerity to ask lots of question are mental laziness. I would suggest it's the opposite.
I have non-trading system(s)that have taken a relatively long time to put together, but they do not have the characteristic of instant gratification that these so- called " trading" systems have. To work my system(s) takes enormous patience and self-belief that what you are doing is right, as otherwise you could end up wasting 5 years of your ( punting) life for nothing.
Would you have the strength of character or guts to do that ? Probably not, given your well known yellow streak.
All I am trying to do here in raising valid questions about the literally quite astounding claims of short term, immediate trading success by some, is to point exactly ( to the unwary) that it is not as easy as falling off a log ( as some have claimed).In fact it is quite the converse.It will only be achieved by those special few who have the combination of skills necessary.
I doubt very much you are one of them in fact.
But then again I could be wrong, as essentially I know about as much about you as you know about me ( except what I have selectively revealed on here).
And no, I do not count your ability to understand Kelly staking as being indicative of advanced statistical modelling skills.

Correct Lori, I match something like 20k bets per day which I think works out somewhere between 7 and 8 million per year.

That doesn't sound at all wrong to me. I was erring on the cautious side so as not to upset the frogster's distaste for big numbers.

OK I give up.
My scepticism remains unabated, and your beliefs remain equally intact.
Over the history of mankind it has always been the case that if and when " super " money making techniques become known about, the field becomes " crowded " and the opportunity is milked dry.
Apparently, in the case here, that is not happening. That is BF has created a new paradigm.
Maybe you're right, but I doubt it.

To assume the field becomes crowded, you have to believe that everything you get, you compete for...meaning for you to have it, someone else has to lose out.

That is the biggest misconception of all. You get what you believe, and if your belief is limitation, so will be your experience. You seem to think you are competing for scraps against the masses. You are up against only one person.....yourself.