|
By:
Hello there FAFH
You say "I'm just really trying to protect some innocent on here from ever starting to take you seriously." but if you make snipes at people then people won't like you and consequently listen to what you have to say. If you disagree with someone just say so no need to have little digs. Just like "I just realised that it is a bit unfair of me to snipe at you like this, as you now apparently can't read and reply accordingly. Which sort of takes the edge of things." Not entirely sure what you are trying to say here but to me it just looks like another little snipe. Life's too short froggy for this, it doesn't get you anywhere either. For what it's worth i actually agree that facing the pc can make you think about other ways in which you bet and incorporate new strategies which, because of fear of failure you might not have implemented already. Of course there is always the possibility of this being a bad thing as well as good. |
|
By:
You're right UA.
Your points are well meant and well taken by me. But unfortunately something always snaps in me when I perceive tripe being potrayed as wisdom. I understand perfectly that certain strategies can be undertaken to ameliorate the impact of the PC, but to say that one can turn the PC on its head to make fortunes is just plain wrong and misleading. Sorry to have upset you or anybody else, except of course the intended targets. |
|
By:
I think you can do positive greening up. for example in the french open final I backed nadal. when he was 4-2 up in the third set, I could have laid him off at 1.01, but couldn't be bothered, thinking that it was all over.
then I could have gone in again on him at 1.27 at the start of the fourth, without risking anything more than I was at the start of the match, but with the difference being that I would have been winning a lot more. |
|
By:
I wish I couldn't green up:
Third Round Matches / Tipsarevic v A Murray / Match Odds Andy Murray Lay 15100748892 09-Jun-11 16:47 C 1.03 3.00 1.03 (0.09) Third Round Matches / Tipsarevic v A Murray / Match Odds Andy Murray Back 15100487874 09-Jun-11 16:32 C 1.08 2.00 1.08 0.16 Third Round Matches / Tipsarevic v A Murray / Match Odds Andy Murray Back 15099900156 09-Jun-11 15:57 C 1.21 2.00 1.21 0.42 Third Round Matches / Tipsarevic v A Murray / Match Odds Andy Murray Lay 15099896026 09-Jun-11 15:57 C 1.17 2.00 1.17 (0.34) Second Round Matches / Krajicek v Safarova / Match Odds Lucie Safarova Lay 15097159446 09-Jun-11 12:26 C 1.46 2.02 1.46 (0.93) Second Round Matches / Krajicek v Safarova / Match Odds Lucie Safarova Back 15097113300 09-Jun-11 12:20 C 1.49 2.00 1.49 0.98 Second Round Matches / Voskoboeva v Zhang / Match Odds Shuai Zhang Lay 15096507865 09-Jun-11 10:49 C 1.74 2.00 1.74 (1.48) Second Round Matches / Voskoboeva v Zhang / Match Odds Shuai Zhang Back 15096462059 09-Jun-11 10:40 C 2.06 2.00 2.06 2.12 I'm nicking pennies: net P&L is 80p. If I'd lost any of these bets I'd have gone down for a couple of quid. The most annoying one is the Murray one, the 1.03 lay was pure greening for the sake of it. In fact when I greened then, the odds did go out to 1.04, but I'm annoyed I laid. Likewise, my initial bet on the WTA was +1 Safa, -2 Kryk; I should have stuck with that and rode the whole thing out. That just shows average odds which is misleading to some degree I think. As I've said elsewhere. Greening can be profitable as part of an overall strategy, but that strategy must include redding out as well. Overall though, every bet made should be the value bet. If you're making a bet through any reason other than value that is lack of discipline. Fear is just as bad as greed for breaking discipline. In poker it's called "Tilt". There are 2 ways to tilt. The more commonly known is the guy who loses AA to AK then spews all in on K8 next hand because they're so angry and want to get "their" money back. Another form of tilt seen in tournaments is actually the other way, the guy who won their AK against AA might then play over cautiously the next few hands because they don't want to "give some back". This second tilt can actually be more damaging than the first, especially at some stages of the tournament. Basically it helps to bet with as little as you can relative to your bank. I bet £2 a time because I know I can drop 100 stakes on the site and while I'll be annoyed that month it won't really hurt me in the long run. It'll sting for sure, but it won't actually hurt. Therefore I won't feel a need to green, I can happily lose a few quid in places. That's the plan, anyway. As you can see I break my discipline way too much. I greened in the cricket last night, I greened in the tennis today. Bet on value, not on green. I greeneed out my west ham to get relegated bet when they were 2.5 to go down. I greened out my Chelsea to win prem bet having laid them at 1.6, ended up backing them at 2.5. I laid man u to win prem bet after backing them at 2.08 I greened at 1.8. All these greenings were done not because I saw value, but because I was scared I'd lose £6 or however much the difference between max red and even green was. The one green I did see value in greening out was my wigan to get relagated bet. Was on them at 2.05 and 1.9 (2.0 average), ended greening out at 1.45, but I shouldn't have even greened, I should have had the balls to completely REVERSE. I could spot the value in them staying up, and I was an idiot to just split the even green rather than completely reversing my bet. I'm not bragging with aftertiming here, these are just examples of where I've destroyed my season with greening. I don't even want to talk about when I greened the 0-0 spurs v man u bet at half time. This would be fine if I were to red my losses. Instead I just let them run. I normally bet £2 a time, then during the cricket world cup I lost my head, stuck £10 on the netherlands to beat some team (WI? Ire?) and I messed up completely. I had opportunity to "red out" for an even £1 loss, and didn't do it because I didn't want to admit defeat. I wanted desperately to win every bet. "winning" a bet became more important than actually making long term profit. I was setting myself up a classic "black swan", where I greened so quickly, that I could get green in 99% of games. The downside was that the inevitable loss when it came would be 100x my winnings from each match. My P&L from that time is all +6p here, +3p there, -£10 elsewhere. If I could have a tool that forced me to only ever make 1 bet in a market I'd take it. I can roll myself enough that I'd happily take the "unlucky" losses, the last minute goals etc, if it means I actually get a proper win for once, instead of only ever winning half the amount I was "expecting" when placing the initial bet. There's nothing less satisfying than winning £5 knowing you could have won £50 but greened out. It feels like a loss and you end up chasing anyway! There's a difference between greening/redding after punting and marking making. For instance right now I have in the wimbledon market a bet put up for nalbandian, I'm trying to get matched a back at 800 and a lay at 550. This isn't greening though, this is more "market making", I'm putting up a spread around what I think the true value is. Both my bets are (imo) value. Greening is more about betting against yourself in running to avoid losses. This is often counter-productive to your long term balance. |
|
By:
Mythical prince : when he was 4-2 up in the third set, I could have laid him off at 1.01, but couldn't be bothered, thinking that it was all over.
then I could have gone in again on him at 1.27 at the start of the fourth, without risking anything more than I was at the start of the match, but with the difference being that I would have been winning a lot more. It's always easy after the event. |
|
By:
Ror, why do you keep on doing it then?
I'm currently teaching a friend some football value, the hardest part of which has been drumming in to him to let all bets ride after the off, otherwise he wins pennies and loses pounds. |
|
By:
..Lot of people stating their opinion as hard fact in this thread.
|
|
By:
Mythical prince : when he was 4-2 up in the third set, I could have laid him off at 1.01, but couldn't be bothered, thinking that it was all over.
= I thought the true price was less than 1.01 so I kept my position. then I could have gone in again on him at 1.27 at the start of the fourth, without risking anything more than I was at the start of the match, but with the difference being that I would have been winning a lot more = but I didn't think that 1.27 was value. Yes you COULD have done those things, but you don't do them if they are not, in your opinion, value at that time. |
|
By:
My analysis suggests that the greening up issue is like a seesaw. If you have an edge and the slope is in your favour greening up reduces your profits a lot. If you have no edge and things are roughly in balance you may get a small steady profit by greening up correctly on price moves. If you have no edge greening up or "redding" up slows your rate of loss a lot compared to letting bets ride. The tilt on the seesaw shifts the rate of growth or loss quite dramatically one way or the other if you don't green up.
Try not watching the game if you were confident in your initial bet - saves a lot of pain |
|
By:
The interesting aspect of this argument is the perception of value.
People refer to greening up and i get the impression that they green up because they like to see a win regardless of outcome. This implies that they have no system which determines where value is when an event is in-play (which is fair enough). Then they discover after the event has finished that if they hadn't greened up they would have won more. From this they deduce that their bet in-play when they greened upwas not at value. But why not, the only new information that you have is the result. How do you suddenly know what value is if you did't know before. It's like saying if i got a bet on to green out at 25-1 after 3 minutes for Man U to win the Champ League final it wouldn't have been a value bet because Man U lost. Hindsight is not always 20-20. |
|
By:
Cp, so you weren't willing to lay him at 1.01 yet you wouldn't back him a few games later at 1.27? you seem to be
very influenced by the score. 1.27 was tremendous value. |
|
By:
Besides my real point is that with greening up you put yourself in a position
to win a tremendous amount of money on a match. which you wouldn't do if you just kept your intial position. Take the Isner-Mahut match from Wimbledon last year for example. Ok it's an extreme example but if you simply had laid the Favourite each time you would have retired from the match a Millionare. I don't see how someone can come to such a definite view on a price in-play, in such a small space of time. Better to trade and play on the fluctuations and general human weaknesses. |
|
By:
On betting, the options are there:
- green out across the board. For trading, this is obviously the goal. If you have backed, I tend to: - Go to zero bet. You backed then put the whole stake on a lay at lower odds. Works best with horse racing if you are playing in-running and the threats to your bet are still present as the race progresses. It takes knowing the time/distance of the race to keep you from over-reacting (a layer's dream in-running). Once you go to zero, you'll have a clear head and can always: - re-enter the market. You backed, you laid, now sit back and look at the scene. How is the event evolving? Horse-racing often offers the best plays to go back in. Tennis, know your players. As well, you backed at 2's. You laid at 1.35 because the match looked shaky. You're probably right to stick to your gut. But if the team you backed gets their team back in line, you can re-enter at 1.25, etc, if you really want the whole bet. Options are there but feeling like you're in 'control' makes for clearer decisions. |
|
By:
mythical prince even though you said an "extreme example", your example is using the benefit of hindsight... if I backed Marion Bartoli @ 1000 to beat Justine Henin in 2007 Wimbledon I would be a millionaire. You can use any example with hindsight it doesn't prove anything.
I know its "horses for courses" but I am firmly in the camp that greening up for the sake of it is the wrong path to take. I would much rather trade to go all red than to go all green. Greening up as has been pointed out is more for comfort emotionally than any other reason. I believe whether pre match or in play if your trades/bets are not at value you will not win long term. |
|
By:
of course it's with the benefit of hindsight, but I was just
trying to use an example of how playing on the flucuations in play can lead to far bigger profits than simply placing one crude bet can. for example, lets say both players are evs. I place 2 quid on one to win. if his odds never come in, then I just accept i've lost 2 quid. If he does come in, however, I can potentially trade my bet and keep playing around with the profits, trading on the highs and lows, to a situation where I can potentially win a lot more than 2 quid. |
|
By:
and if its a 1.01 train you have given away value
|
|
By:
true, but all depends on your style of betting I suppose.
|
|
By:
"I would much rather trade to go all red than to go all green."
I personally would rather trade to go all green rather than all red. |
|
By:
well each to their own U.A. but maybe you missed my point. What I am saying is I would rather let my green run that cutting it just to go all green and I would rather cut my losing trades to go all red.
If you are happy to go all green and give away value just for the sake of it then best of luck to you |
|
By:
Hello there dlarssonf.
sorry for my flippant comment it was a very strange sentence to read but i understand your point even if i don't agree with it. I personally think you should be consistant and if you trade out for a loss you should be ultimately trading out for a profit as well. I don't really get the point that if the bet is going against you then it's ok to trade out but if it's going the right way it's best to leave it. It's like saying "if a price is moving one way then it is going to be value for trading purposes but if it's moving the other way then it's not going to be value". I just dont buy it. The important thing i suppose is whatever you do make sure you have a plan beforehand, unless it's just a bit of fun. |
|
By:
ah no problem U.A. - i did not take your comment as flippant mate but we shall have to agree to disagree, which is why I mentioned "horses for courses" earlier. For me what works is managing my losses ( reds ) and then letting the green's look after themselves
|
|
By:
No worries dlarssonf. If you don't mind can I ask a question? (that one's rhetorical) What sport do you trade? and assuming you trade in-play do you have any system to determine when a price is value or do you work off gut-feeling/observation?
|
|
By:
I trade tennis , golf , NFL, and football. All are mainly A v B markets but no I don't use any system. I just use all the information available, along with my own appraisal of what the odds should be pre match. Yes I do a lot of in play as well and that is just total observation... No real rocket science to how I work either pre match or in play, I will only back / lay if I feel the odds are in my favour and this along with money management serves me well but I totally understand that there is a lot that do it different to me
|
|
By:
dlarssonf
I not being flippant either, but how does one " feel" the odds are in one's favour ? Btw I tend to agree with your more red than green approach to trading. Makes a lot of sense to me. |