Robot:The effect of the x-matcher is always to move prices closer to true value and that's bad for all winning players (but good for losing ones)

Somebody said earlier that people only see things from their own perspective/experience, that's true.

I'm a winning player and I thrive on tight markets that offer true value, the more money on every tick the better, to the extent that I don't even bother with sparse markets. So maybe the XM will be good for me.

tight margins are fine but you can't make money long term in true value markets.

I disagree. You're only looking at one type of value, namely the odds.

Trevh,

When I use the term "value" I'm using it as short hand for "positive expected value" and I'm using it in the strict mathematical sense - that is to describe the relationship between the true probability of the outcome you're betting on and the odds at which you're betting. There is only one "type of value" - and that's it. When I use the term "true value" I mean "zero value" - ie exactly as many of your bets will win as the odds would lead you to expect.

Whether you concern yourself explicitly with "looking for value" or not changes nothing, you can ONLY win by striking value bets. This is obvious when you think about it in retrospect, for an example imagine that you've struck a large number of bets at 2. If these bets are true value then half of them will win, that means your bets break even which makes you a loser due to comm. If more than half of them win then you win - so either you got lucky or you found some value. Extrapolate this and it should be clear that ANY large series of bets that shows a profit must either show overall value or be very lucky to get some good variance. We're not interested in luck because we want to win long term, so let's hope you found some value.

All winners look for value, to illustrate this let's take an example of someone who might think he's winning without looking for value (he's wrong) - imagine a bot that could magically get every bet you strike matched immediately provided you ask for the same odds as are at the front of the queue. All you would need to do is continuously lay at the back price, back at the lay price and get on the phone to the yacht builders. So does this bettor need to bet at value? Yes - he does, and he is. Think of it like this:

When you have two prices (back and lay) there are two possibilities regarding how those prices relate to true value:

1: True value is in-between, both prices show small positive value.

2: One price is on the money true value, the other shows positive value.

By definition at least one price MUST be value, by matching both he makes sure he gets it.

So why don't you just code up the above bot and book your flight to the Maldives? It won't work - that's why. This is because there is an inverse relationship between the value of a bet and it's likelihood of getting matched. This is obvious when you think about extreme examples - if the true probability of an outcome is 0.5 (odds of 2) then I'm very unlikely to be matched if I try to back at 4 and certain to be matched if I try to back at 1.5. The same mechanism works at every scale, right down to single tick increments. I am more likely to be matched at 2 than at 2.02 - in other words, the better the price you ask for the less likely you are to get it (obvious). This is true even without the x-matcher, but the x-matcher strengthens this effect by moving the price closer to true value, closing the spread and making the poor value side of a bet even more likely to match than the good value side.

Incidentally, getting bets matched is almost the whole art of Betfair, defining and spotting value prices is easy, it's knowing which ones you'll be able to match and how to do it that's tricky

Just to make sure the core point is totally rammed home I'm going to use one more example - the "bet angel" style trader who trades off small swings in prices aiming to back and then lay shortly afterwards (or the other way round). Again this person might think he's not interested in value - and again, he's wrong. Overall market forces will always tend to move prices towards true value, this is not to say that they never move them the wrong way, but that they will much more often move them the right way. A manual trader makes his money by predicting which way prices are likely to move usually using market information, however for a market to move it must usually start by being out of line. Overall markets move because they are trending towards true value, so to get movements you have to start with value prices.

The art of the trader is to open his trade at the right moment when the market is about to move, since the market will generally move towards value this means that more often than not he must open his trades at value prices. He may look for clues to value in market information such as weight of money - but ultimately it's still value that he's looking for. If these markets are stabilised and kept close to true value from the beginning there is reduced opportunity for the trader to play his game. 

So, to sum up:
All long term winners strike value bets, like it or not, know it or not. This includes traders, bracketers and everyone else.
The x-matcher makes your value bets less likely to match and your bad bets more likely to match.
This is bad if you like money.

Hopefully that's fairly comprehensive because I don't really want to get drawn into (another) long discussion about this.

Investor: If it was truly best execution then the two backers in my example above would both be given half of their stake as a back at 1.8 and half as a lay on the other horse (also at 1.8). What's most annoying about the x-matcher is that it matches your back as a lay but doesn't pay you as one.

you can ONLY win by striking value bets.

Sorry, but this is completely false.

And anyway assumes sports matches are probalistic events which they are not.

Betting markets are merely the perceived probability of each side winning. There is no real probability. Sports matches are one time binary events.

Once you understand that you are dealing with the perceived probability, rather than the real probability (which doesn't exist) then you are on your way to making money on BF.

Froggie the Fisher, are you listening.

You lose me Robot when you throw off casual phrases like " defining and spotting value prices is easy ".
It's not.
Nobody disagrees, or at least they shouldn't, with the essence of your last post, which is that long term winning at gambling is all about beating the odds you're wagering at by a large enough margin to cover commission and other transaction costs.
That's not even debatable or interesting. It's a boring fact.
However, how to go about beating the odds isan interesting and debatable subject.
Only if and when people ( like you) dare to reveal small snippets of their techniques do things become intriguing  and fascinating on here.
That's what most of us really are looking to find out from you, given your apparent record of large success.

Froggie, you recall a system I had that I told you had a 90% hit rate a couple of months ago.

Well since then it has had a perfect 100% hit rate over 50+ matches. Although I was somewhat lucky, in that a big losing match was voided.

There is a point where you just have to give up.

pxb
You're a genius, no doubt about it.
We're lucky to have you on here.
One day I'm sure if you try hard enough you'll even get a 101% hit rate.

I totally understand that robot.
All I said was that's really only when anything on here becomes really interesting.
As such most things posted on here by all and sundry are not revealing and thus not really interesting.
For a lot of us, it's just a harmless way of passing time between events.
Nothing more, nothing less.

it's funny i agree and see exactly what aye robot means but i also agree with pxb statement

the XM certainly protects the loser at the expense of the long term winner which from the Betfair perspective has every business sense, now having said that, i've also been finding much less value in the goals markets than i used to, it's been getting harder and it has everything to do with what aye robot just wrote, of that im sure. So its pretty easy to understand that someone that is using an automated approach to betting can find it even more difficult

but my approach to betting is based much more on what pxb wrote...

Betting markets are merely the perceived probability of each side winning

Once you understand that you are dealing with the perceived probability, rather than the real probability (which doesn't exist)...


...so the XM just squeezes those margins of inefficiency both in the form of the price itself as in the movement pattern and thats why i've been finding it a little bit harder

^ referring to FAFH

The real point about value is that it is intrinsic to all we do when betting on BF or elsewhere.
If you win, you are beating the odds, and thus you must be getting value somehow.
That line of reasoning/logic is unarguable.
However, the interesting thing is that not all of us select our wagers in the same manner.
For eaxmple my search criteria do not contain any value assessments at all.
Whatever value I am getting, and I must be getting it if I'm winning, is derived indirectly from my other primary selection criteria.
I am not a value driven bettor. Others are.
But that is not to say that any one way is right to the exclusion of all others.
Value has to be obtained, but how is up to the individual.
That difference is, after all, why markets exist at all.

Jimmy - if you bet in running on the GGs then I've almost certainly matched some of your bets. It'd be more interesting to know who won! I'm sure there will be players who have taken good chunks of my money when I get it wrong.

Good for you mate. It's a mugs game.

agree FAFH

but i know i've got value (or feel it, if you wish) when i'm seeing the event and seeing the prices, sometimes they are totally wrong regarding whats really happening and i know why they are like that and obviously i act on it

I think it was tongue in cheek[:p]

ok i must take control of my thread.

what is FAFH?

this thread is for bettors to share how they raised there bank. essentially how much they are worth and how they earned there crust... jobs? lottery? betting? investment? inheritance?

Paulol - now that you have confirmed that you are a uni student. Why are you on BF and how did you obtain your bank amount (you have said previously it is zero) but I am sure you have a little bit in there ....

When starting a thread - it is probably a good idea to perhaps answer the topic question by relating it to your own circumstances which may entice others to open up a bit more to you ....

no i left uni years ago.

ok my bank is 1p (i have bets pending) but i have money saved up from working in a.. i think it's called a.. job.

don't be like that Management. we're friends are we not? i have alot of respect for you. don't spoil it :):):)