General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 215 comments are related to the topic:
Value Betting
Value Betting
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 215
|
By:
For the millionth time.....
You can't ever tell the value of an individual sports bet definitively either before or after the result. You can only see the average value in a set of results, and even then only in probabilistic terms. If you strike 100 bets at 2 and win them all then it's overwhelmingly likely that you have struck some pretty awesome value. |
|
By:
aye robot
are u a backer a layer or trade in running? |
|
By:
Mostly IR horse bots. Will bet any old how if it's likely to be value.
|
|
By:
but are these bots greening up in running?
|
|
By:
Robot
I agree with the statement that you never " know " value in betting on a sports event. But the Kelly followers, have to try to estimate it as successfully as they can, BEFORE the event. |
|
By:
FAFH: 09 Feb 11 15:21
greedkillsmybankagain: Not exaclty, I just strike a whole bunch of (hopefully) value bets, that said, I very often come out green. |
|
By:
Mister Management, zip here , 4 things you admire about me on the first 3 your spot on not convinded about the lucky pin stuff .. zip dont do luck, luck runs out . But knowledge is for ever you should try it someday
|
|
By:
Re the guy about gambing joints who played the 52 deck pack they only played to the holiday makers , card counters were not welcome but that was 19 years ago move on I did .
|
|
By:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. Illeism is the act of referring to oneself in the third person instead of the more appropriate first person. Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device. In real life usage, illeism can reflect a number of different stylistic intentions or involuntary circumstances Illeism is also a (literary) device used to show idiocy, such as the character Mongo in Blazing Saddles, e.g. "Mongo like candy" and "Mongo only pawn in game of life." Illeism in everyday speech can have a variety of intentions depending on context. One common usage is to impart humility, a common practice in feudal societies and other societies where honorifics are important to observe ("Your servant awaits your orders"), as well as in master-slave relationships ("This slave needs to be punished"). The use of illeism in this context imparts a sense of lack of self, implying a diminished importance of the speaker in relation to the addressee. Conversely, in different contexts, illeism can be used to reinforce self-promotion, as used to sometimes comic effect by Bob Dole throughout his political career.[2] This was particularly made notable during the United States presidential election, 1996 and lampooned broadly in popular media for years afterwards. Similarly illeism is used with an air of grandeur, to give the speaker lofty airs. Idiosyncratic and conceited people are known to either use or are lampooned as using illeism to puff themselves up or illustrate their egoism. Anyone on this forum spring to mind? |
|
By:
Sandown , that seems like me ....Zipper .. And your point is ???
|
|
By:
Zipper
I think my point is obvious - read the last para again. |
|
By:
Sandown i dont need to read anything twice ive had a very good eduction , now your point is put up or shut up ////
|
|
By:
aye robot
Shame he wasn't wise enough to figure out that if you never back a loser you must be betting at very good value. Or maybe the point is.. everyone does bet losers (unless its treble twisted). So value does obv matter.? |
|
By:
so unless you can point to a problem in the maths you'll have to concede that the matter is settled.
Haha! You implied at first the overall house edge is 0.0007%, corrected to 0.007%, then you said it depends on the punters at the table. So in conclusion, what is the overall roulette house edge, which was the original question. I said it is 2.7% and you have yet to answer. If you're not clear on it I really would encourage you to work through a simple example (given above) - work out what the return is and what the risk is on backing 30 bets at 3 with a true value of 2, then laying 30 bets at 2 with a true value of 3, this will illustrate the point perfectly. Rather patronising. It's a massive mistake to say that things "can't happen in the real world" [snip] I can't think off the top of my head how you can quickly calculate how many times you have to spin a roulette wheel before it becomes likely that you'll hit 37 consecutive zeros (I'm not very strong on maths - I only know the basic stuff) but doubtless someone will post it up very shortly - and I would say think of this: How many roulette wheels are there in the world? How often are they spun? How long has that been going on for? The odds against something may be large, but if you spin the wheel enough times it will come up. No it won't, not before the Sun dies and Earth is no more! I'm very surprised that you believe it's possible. I believe the longest run of just under evens shots ever recorded was around 35. The chance of spinning 37 zero's has a statistical significance of zero, which renders your 0.007% edge theory inappropriate, and would result in severe under staking. |
|
By:
What you are discovering is why when you use Kelly you have to put in the chance of winning as well as the edge.
|
|
By:
OK then.
Lets assume you price up 2 horse races and make your favourite 2/1 in each. They are 3/1 and 10/1 respectively. Your tank is £1,000. How much do you stake on each? What would be your base stake and how much after applying your Kelly coefficient? |
|
By:
The 1k on the 3/1 shot , Why i could not be that so far out .. lets see gamble on .
|
|
By:
20.69% on the 4.0 shot
28.74% on the 11.0 shot |
|
By:
.
http://www.sbrforum.com/betting-tools/kelly-calculator/ If they're on seperate races, note that you only bet 11.11% on the 4.0 and 26.67% on the 11.0, but as you're betting on a combined better chance within the same race you can bet bigger. |
|
By:
The Management , watch your words they all try some try harder than others .. some are trying to win some are trying to get their H/C mark down .. some are trying to be races horses . the rest are very trying .. its only a bit of fun .
|
|
By:
Also note that if you bet on two individual horses running in different races at the same time you have to lower your stakes to 23.70% and 8.15% because you have more money in play.
|
|
By:
Lori forget that nonsence .......put em in a win double
|
|
By:
You actually should have a double of 2.96% on top of the two singles with correct play zip.
|
|
By:
Lori , you lost me whats what you say 2.96% on each ///// whats 2.96 of a grand .. these kids and if it won how much do we have on the next cert .
|
|
By:
If it wins we take wifey out to a nice lunch and buy nursey some flowers.... unless you fancy doing that the other way around for a change of course. Nursey might prefer that.
|
|
By:
The Management. Heres how to play a yankie 11 bets any one lose you have lost 7 bets your down to 4 bets another on gets beat your down to a double . that cost you 11 points . forget that play it this way 3 pionts win 4 timer IF they all go in it works out a bit more than the yankie .. for £12 quid you can have 4 shots at it zip
|
|
By:
MT your so right very few of my win bets are unplaced thats why i bet 1 win..6 place 2 win ..18 place on the other hand if its a cert ALL IN my max and yes i do have a max .. The other part of my income is laying .
|
|
By:
The Management, When i feel like that headache , pains all over well go into a dark room, lay down take about 3 sleepings pills about 3 Anadin a bottle of Jack Daniels .. Oh and dont forget the Nurse about 6.00pm to night you will be fine.... promise .
|
|
By:
Mister Manager zip forgot to say the nurse has to have a white shirt and white suspenders .. other wise it dont work be happy
|
|
By:
Lori
Mathematical probability suggests betting 2/1 shots will produce a losing sequence of around 15 at some stage. Therefore you will go skint very quickly as the stakes you propose will be unable to accomodate the losers. Even on a reducing balance there will be precious little left to stage a comeback. |
|
By:
The good news is that the rate you win at is fast enough to cover it either before it happens, or afterwards.
Also, the original problem was a 1/2 shot not a 2/1 shot. Everyone is of course free to bet how much they are comfortable with, I merely gave the optimal numbers that can be mathematically proved (Assuming I didn't make an error with the calculator that is) to give the highest EG, which is what most gamblers want. |
|
By:
Just analyse the debunking I gave of the rubbish the pro gambler site produced where they recommend you bet more than your entire bankroll on every bet and you'll see this is entirely preferable unless you have a good loan company nearby. (10 Feb 19:09 post)
That's as detailed as I should need to go in fairness, it's quite clear you can't bet more than your bankroll in the real world, no matter how much he'd like you to. |
|
By:
Lori
With respect. A losing sequence is just that and is not dependent on the price of the horse. If the losing sequence is 15 then you need to cater for that plus some to get out. In a world of infinte money Kelly works, so too does Martingale. Unfortunately in the real world funds are limited. |
|
By:
Kelly caters for it. You'll need to read through the proof on Wiki if you want more info I've tried hard to explain it to you but it's not some hocus pocus, it's an actual mathematical proof.
Anyone who runs into a 1 in 14 million losing streak like you've described is going to have trouble no matter what the staking plan. Thankfully for all of us, that's the same chance as winning the lottery. All we can do is allow for the times where we don't run into a lottery winning streak of bad luck and maximize what we win while we run "average" You linked to a site that recommends betting more than your entire bankroll as level stakes on every bet, which is clearly silly. I'm always happy to discuss opinions with other gamblers as it helps both parties to learn, I'm not however happy to have long discussions about things that are facts while someone says they're not, so I'll have to sign out of this discussion at this point. |
|
By:
I just wanted to say how glad I am that there are still punters around like zipper.
 |
|
By:
Thesnapper , would you like to elaborate .. keep it clean and remember its fun
|
|
By:
I mean...dammit jim...thank goodness we all aren't number crunching computer geeks who never leave our computers and are afraid to wager a man-sized bet over the kelly limit for implied ranges on verified data sets! Thanks goodness, I say, for a manly-man-among men like mr zipper who damn well will stand up and wager a decent amount just because the damn horse is clearly going to run well...and then won't sit around and cry about a loser...he'll rush on and wager on the next race...never keep a good man like mr zipper down. cheers and all the best to you ... keep it up. Don't let this crew of nay-sayers and pencil-necks ..statisticians and other motley beatniks put you off.
|
|
By:
The Snapper zips his own man this 3.45 warwick Silver Kate about 15/8 lay it till your nose bleeds ok thats a bit Aggressive but thats the only way i know cause my dad was like that and he did ok
|
|
By:
The Snapper just read your post 14.58 Heres one from zip .......they wont .
|
|
By:
that's just great man....KEEP ON ROCKIN IN THE FREE WORLD!!!...never stop being aggressive...double up those stakes when you need to!
|