General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
What do you think the best sport to bet on is and why?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 100
|
By:
In my opinion, tennis because the odds are moving very quickly, so you can win a lot (or lose a lot) in a few minutes. The facts that it is a one vs one game and that there are only two possible results (unlike football match odds) make it more easily predictable too.
|
|
By:
The best sports to bet on are the ones that are most difficult to price up at any given point.
Also those that have enough turning points/scoring to get plenty of swings in price. Tennis and football are way too easy to price up to get enough opportunuities imo American Football and Basketball are the 2 standouts for me |
|
By:
5f sprints
|
|
By:
I guess curlywurly doesn't bet on tennis...otherwise he wouldn't be making the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
|
|
By:
tennis and football. never managed a ain on horses
|
|
By:
Football correct scores. I only occasionally dabble but you do sometimes see odds that just look wrong. e.g. Yesterday in fulham liverpool 1-1 and 1-2 were both around 7/1, two easy lays. (Which I couldn't get on because it was too much liability, I prefer to keep liability under a tenner.)
Football in general actually. If everyone down the pub is saying "ah well chelsea are gonna win this 3-0, 4-0 no problem" it's worth laying chelsea. Football (popular games anyway) has a huge amount of naive money going in. |
|
By:
laying on football the only way
|
|
By:
Very interesting question and if thought about logically the question arises
is a formula possible to indicate how good certain markets can be in terms of exchange investment. This boils down to IMO inversely proportional(deviation from price implied chance against standard form disciplines implied chances) X average BSP price implied chance deviation from exotic form disciplines implied chance X average market deviation between average hi-low price X liquidity of market. Along these lines it would be football and horse racing best and greyhound racing the worst which is why liquidity or market volumes reflect the above conditions. The fact you can profit from either worst or best examples if applying logical conditional betting /trading proves that all markets can be profitable on a sporting exchange, its all down to how you work or play the exchange markets. |
|
By:
Without football I'd be in loss, although that's partly because not all my Xfactor bets have been settled yet, I'm still expecting another £2 from that:
Cricket: -£2.04 | Horse Racing: £0.00 | Soccer: £11.29 | Special Bets: £2.75 | Tennis: -£0.96 Total P&L: £11.04 |
|
By:
regarding my last post, the reason the first component is inversely proportional is because all prices
and markets are based on traditional form compiling thus the deviation from returned accuracy indicates the reliability of the market performers. A typical example of this would be the large difference in market accuracy of a maiden race where few had raced before against a handicap race with exposed runners means that a more assured result and profit will emerge from the handicap example than the maiden race on average(disrespecting stable horse training reports) |
|
By:
it's a ridiculous question since every event is a zero sum game with as many winners as losers. If you bet in running be aware of the effect that time advantages can have.
If you want an adrenalin rush a sport that involves a race up to 4 minutes gives the biggest buzz. Swimming is brilliant from that perspective as you have some great tense finishes. For a longer stint the biathlon is my favourite. |
|
By:
There is nothing more boring than betting on snooker
|
|
By:
If you want to make a success from betting then you must detach yourself emotionally from the events that you bet/trade in.
|
|
By:
higher cortex activity only acceptable.
|
|
By:
Tennis - prices change after every point
|
|
By:
If you want to make a success from betting then you must detach yourself emotionally from the events that you bet/trade in.
Disagree entirely. Something has got to stir your interest and emotion for you to get stuck into it. That mebbe purely the maths for some people |
|
By:
Superb point clydebank, some emotions are very important to drive a person positively into advancement
but the more automated and less involved with tedious and stressful activity in any workplace the more productive you will become. |
|
By:
bff its getting heavily involved in tedious and stressful activity that makes people successful, unless you want to improve your golf............then again Gary Player was famous for saying...
I understand the point you are making though, being too stressed isnt good for anyone. That's why the god of betting invented trading and hedging. |
|
By:
Trading and hedging is perhaps much more tedious and stressful than simply putting on a pre-matchbet and then going out to the pub and coming home hours later to find out what happened ?
|
|
By:
Sure it is more tedious if you just did trading although I dispute it's more stressful (If you want to become a succesful staright gambler mind you have to do loads of tedious groundwork which can often lead you nowhere, indeed even if you trade you should do but less so), I was really meaning the option to trade and hedge in relation to relieving stress.
I never mentioned trading and hedging as a way of relieving tedium only of relieving stress as it goes. |
|
By:
^ FAFH - "Trading and hedging is perhaps much more tedious and stressful than......"
Based on that statement, I don't think you fully understand the difference between trading versus betting. A successful trader/hedger will typically have an account that shows a straight upward line of consistent/persistent profit - very, very tedious but not at all stressful. His mirror image counterpart that is a bettor would have an account that (long term) shows the same consistent/persistent profit - but it wouldn't be the same straight upward line! - it will involve significant "ups and downs" along the way - so potentially much more stressful. Neither activity is more tedious and stressful - one is more tedious and the other is more stressful. I would imagine that many successful players do both - i.e. betting to accelerate the gains and trading to smooth the variance. |
|
By:
I would imagine that many successful players do both - i.e. betting to accelerate the gains and trading to smooth the variance
Indeed..that's exactly what I do and exactly why I do it |
|
By:
Me too Clydebank. I am happy/confident to be a straight bettor during the flat season (horse racing) but much less comfortable/confident with the jumps. So i usually resort to trading for the jumps/soccer in order to either enhance the net prices taken on my bets - or to just trade.
Summer = miss most of the sunshine outside, longer hours and stress! Winter = shorter hours but cold and tedious! |
|
By:
Does that mean you are gay when it comes to jumps betting?
 |
|
By:
In your dreams Jimmy! In your dreams!
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
MM
I think I might just understand the difference. One thing that always bemuses about the trading game, is that inorder to trade out of something you have to take a position in it first. So I can position take without trading, but not vice versa. So how can the latter be less stressful than the former ? Just because it smooths out my net performance curve ? Is that enough to compensate for sitting watching a game /race, hopefully waiting for the opportunity to arise to trade out ( and worse than ever, then being distracted when it does - the phone goes at a vital moment ). Remember in all that time, in my example I'm in the pub downing a few with my mates. |
|
By:
FAFH - If you are "hopefully waiting for the opportunity to trade out" - yes I imagine that would be stressful! But that statement applies to a guesser rather than a trader. If you know (with a fairly large degree of certainty) which way the market is going to go - then imo it is pretty stress free (tedious - but stress free!).
|
|
By:
You are correct that both traders and bettors have to take a position - but one (the trader) is only taking a position on the price - the other (the bettor) is taking a position on the outcome.
|
|
By:
All traders are guessers aren't they? They can not predict the future.
|
|
By:
When the racing has finished - I will exemplify the dilemma (that I sometimes face in the winter) between betting versus trading.
|
|
By:
If you knew which way the market would move, the market would already have moved there.
|
|
By:
ror - can't chat at length right now but I said "with a fairly large degree of certainty".
If I consistently "guess" correctly (eight+ times out of ten) which way the market will move over a sustained period of time in certain markets - I feel comfortable in saying that I know! |
|
By:
|
|
By:
if a market was going to move a certain way 80% of the time, well that's not actually very impressive if what you make in those cases is less than what you lose on the other 20%.
|
|
By:
As for a punter. (or "gambler" but I'd say Gambler is a term for both punters and traders, so prefer punter/trader to mark out the difference between someone betting in play and not.).
I'd say a winning punter will have an opinion on the price too. Sure, there are a lot of thickos who just want to back it at any price because they think it'll happen, but they're not the winning ones. Any winning gambler must be taking an opinion on both the price and the result, as is the trader. Traders are gamblers too. If you don't trade on the fundamentals (the current price relative to the probability of the final outcome) you won't make money trading. Or at least not in the "take a position, change position later, change position later" style trading). Laying a 1.01 because "well you don't think it wins 1 in 100 but you think it'll go to 1.03" is such bad value. If you think it'll go to 1.03 that means you think the odds in the future will be a 1 in 30 (roughly) chance of that outcome. If you think in the future it'll be a 1 in 30 chance then you must think it's a 1 in 30 chance of that final outcome now. If you think it doesn't win 1 in 100 from here you should be backing the 1.01. Always trade on the fundamentals. |
|
By:
ffs - where did I suggest that the losses where the market moves against you should/would outweigh the profits from where it moves for you????
Obviously that wouldn't be very impressive - have you got a degree in stating the bleeding obvious????? |
|
By:
No need to reply - I now know the answer!
|
|
By:
You said that you feel comfortable knowing where the market is going to move 8 times in 10. I said this ins't impressive because unless it makes up for the 2 times in 10 you can't, then it's an unprofitable strategy, and therefore worse than or no better than guessing.
Put it this way, I'd happily say that 8 times in 10 a 11.5 will drift to 12. 8 times in 10 it'll probably ALSO go to 11.0. This isn't actually profitable, because of what you lose when it doesn't. If you get caught the wrong side of a "train" then actually you lose more than the few times you steal a tick or two. So no you don't know where the market is going to move, even if you predict it 8 times in 10, it just makes you someone who's guessing 1.1 shots. |