|
By:
Look out for offers like the Paddy Power one on Champs league final......free money.
|
|
By:
Didn't some reality show contestant go out to 1000/1 when elimininated a few years ago from the Big Brother house only to be put back in the following week by the channel 4 producers?
|
|
By:
Interesting strategy Trevh..So you get evens for the first 27 minutes? In such a game, how many minutes remaining once the current score goes to 2.0?? 15 or so?
|
|
By:
No, the true price will be around evens for the first 27 minutes (depending on 0-0 kick off odds - higher odds = less time) and bookies will be offering you around 5/6. Here though, you can get evens for the first 30-35 minutes, the edge is obvious.
Many punters trying though will fail, because it's a method that requires great self control in redding up, and 10 losses in a row can hurt if you haven't staked wisely. I used to use 0.5% of the betting bank per bet which sounds over cautious, but the reason is that each bet at evens has a large exposure until redded up, and I was laying many matches at the same time. I eventually quit the method as I moved on to other edges that show a greater return for less work. Minutes remaining at evens for a match that gave you 27 minutes after kick off would be around 15 yes. |
|
By:
Trevh,
I see the edge you have in terms of having longer time for the first goal to score. However, surely redding up if a goal not scored before prices halves and also the fact that some matches will end scoreless will wipe out any profit that has been made on matches where early goals scored even though 0-0 backed when price halves to minimise loss. If match ends 0-0, you suffer a loss that will take a few matches to recoup. And there are many matches where goal is scored but not before '33mins', which will lead to no profit on such a match. Maybe I have taken things up slightly wrong but I cannot see the potential of this strategy if this is the case???? |
|
By:
Irishdancer, if you red up then it doesn't matter what score the match ends, you take the same loss on any scoreline
|
|
By:
In that case the majority of goals would have to be scored before price halves in order to make a profit. Is this actually true?
|
|
By:
Just the one goal.
|
|
By:
well 1 goal or more has to be scored before price halves. Does this actually happen enough to profit long term?
|
|
By:
You can get stats like that on soccer stats website
|
|
By:
But bear in mind it's not the 'majority of goals', because you might get one game ending 1-0 with the goal being scored after 15 minutes, and then another game ending 2-2 with all the goals being scored in the 2nd half.
|
|
By:
Ok here are some stats on the matter based purely on the Premiership for all who are interested.
380 games each season. 2009-2010 season 193 games were 0-0 after 27 minutes and 184 games were 0-0 after 28 minutes. 2008-2009 season 195 games were 0-0 after 31 minutes and 189 games were 0-0 after 32 minutes. 2007-2008 season 192 games were 0-0 after 28 minutes and 186 games were 0-0 after 27 minutes. 2006-2007 season 192 games were 0-0 after 30 minutes and 188 games were 0-0 after 31 minutes. |
|
By:
sorry third line should say 29 minutes at the end not 27.
|
|
By:
Any reply from Trevh??
|
|
By:
Irishdancer : well 1 goal or more has to be scored before price halves. Does this actually happen enough to profit long term?
Yes, because layers hold the price up for too long, it's that simple. More than 10 times more money lays than backs. Matches with money on every tick are best as they're easy to red up, you don't want to be in a position of having to red up to a poor price because the MMB is offering a wide spread in a poor liquidity match 25 minutes in. Here's an odd bit of info, I actually found that rather than straight redding up, reversing the original lay to leave a profit on the 0-0 was the most profitable strategy. For example (using £100 stakes/excluding comm), £100 lay at 10.0 = £200 red up at 5.0 = £100 red on all outcomes. But for better results red up £300 at 5.0. The reason is simple too, in that if the price is too big at 5.0 (which it is because layers have held it up) then it has become a value back, not just a red up. The book now reads 0-0 green at £300, all other scores red at £200. U.A., I have my own stats for the Premiership 09/10 season which show 29* points profit after comm for the basic red up method. I also calculated what the profit would be if you laid again (the current score) after the first goal, second goal, third goal etc in every match, but always redded up when the loss became equal to the stake, which showed 56 points profit after comm. *29 points may not sound a great deal, but including all other matches the season showed 267 points profit for the red up method. |
|
By:
HI there Trevh.
I wasn't questioning whether you made a profit or not from it, if you say you did then that's good enough for me. Likewise I don't really have any information as to exactly what minute the prices reached their halflife which you would have, and this would be the important piece of information when assessing if it was profitable or not. I was just providing some statistical information for anyone who might have been interested. Out of interest did you used to trade this way for every game in the entire EPL season or did you just select games yourself on gut instinct/that fitted more specific criteria? |
|
By:
More than 10 times more money lays than backs
[smiley:crazy] |
|
By:
U.A., not every game, just those where liquidity was good enough.
Thebert, what does that smiley mean, BF have some pretty weird smileys. |
|
By:
Crazy.
As in it wasn't exactly worded right as for every lay there must be a back [;)] |
|
By:
It was worded just fine Bert. Every layer is paying more than 10 times as much as the backer because the average 0-0 kick off price is above 11.0.
For example: 0-0 11.0 £200 matched = backers stake £100 / layers stake £1000. |
|
By:
TrevH ;Yes, because layers hold the price up for too long, it's that simple Aye, but you're a layer too, no?
|
|
By:
Hello Trevh
I have my own stats for the Premiership 09/10 season which show 29* points profit after comm for the basic red up method. I also calculated what the profit would be if you laid again (the current score) after the first goal, second goal, third goal etc in every match, but always redded up when the loss became equal to the stake, which showed 56 points profit after comm. Does this mean you would lay the score after a goal even if you could not red out after the odds had halved e.g. a relatively late goal was scored and the lay odds on the current score were less than 2? Or only when the lay odds were greater than 2? Cheers |
|
By:
May I compliment all on a fine discussion, genuinely informative and unusually free of the Neanderthals.
|
|
By:
Lol Surazal.
Stoat, I had a rule of not entering any bets after 70 minutes, which is when the price is at or approaching evens. I figured any bets at that stage would likely be true value and would lose to comm long term. The edge for the 0-0 lay is clear, but I could never work out why laying after each goal showed a greater profit, because there is no clear edge in doing that. Maybe it was because I tried to catch the bounce after a goal when the odds were reforming on the new scoreline, and request to lay a 9.0 shot at say 8.2, redding up at 4.1 instead of 4.5. |
|
By:
I do believe that 0-0 thing cos you are going opposite to the bet a lot of people like, lay the 0-0 and hope for a goal.
Your last point as well, if you are doing this a lot you should know how the market reforms so you've always got the chance of a few % by giving people poor value and getting it taken. |
|
By:
You could possibly save a lot of time and hassle by just backing the 0-0 at the kick off. If, as suggested, layers are holding the price up too much then surely it's value from the off.
|
|
By:
DirtyCash, backing from the off would be poor value, the layers get the value for the first half hour or so. Why back at say 10.0 pre ko when the price is still 10.0 8 minutes later? Laying in that scenario is a free bet, while backing carries exposure to make nothing.
|
|
By:
@Trevh, good shout
|
|
By:
So Trevh, how many games per week would you play this with? You said you play alternative more lucrative avenues?
|
|
By:
It looks like you're on your own now E&B
|
|
By:
"Ernie & Bert".........Get a job with the Local Authority.
|
|
By:
"Ernie & Bert".........Get a job with the Local Authority.
|
|
By:
Looks like one reply to Ernie & one reply to Bert.
|
|
By:
shot! He looks in good nick.
|