General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 100 comments are related to the topic:
Best market to bet on
Best market to bet on
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 100
|
By:
Very impressive - not only a degree in stating the bleeding obvious, also a masters in missing the point and a fecking Phd in going off on a tangent.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Maybe you'd like to explain what you meant by "if I can predict where the market will move 8 times in 10 I think I know".
Because I've stated when I think it is nonsense. |
|
By:
The point was, that nothing is certain (not 100%, not cast iron, not guaranteed) - I hope that is clear? - but if you know much, much, much, more often than not (not all of the time, not 100% - just the vast majority of the time) which direction a price is going to move in then you can profit in one of three ways:
1) From Betting only 2) From Trading only 3) From a combination of the two - i.e. using the trading element to enhance your bet price. To my original point (back in the 19th century before you joined the conversation) - I am comfortable just betting (gambling) on something where history tells me my profits are high and my variance is low. Whereas in other areas where my variance from just gambling is higher - I prefer the surety of trading. |
|
By:
I think I also mentioned - back in the mists of time, that I personally (that is me, myself) find one more stressful than the other - and one more tedious than the other. Whereas I am finding conversing with you both stressful and tedious!
|
|
By:
Come back Jimmy - all is forgiven.
   |
|
By:
Again Methane, if you don't have an edge it doesn't matter how certain you are, it's already priced into the market, which means you're just effectively backing a 1.01, so if you do lose you lose big, or you make very little profit.
It doesn't matter whether you trade, punt, whatever. If it's priced into the market it's priced in. You need to develop an edge, without one you will not make a profit. If you're happy having a 99% strike rate then fine, keep going, but you're just storing up your bad luck for a very bad day. |
|
By:
This is all excellent stuff.
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
^ wtf?
I do this full time - I have been here 11 years (almost to the day) - I think I might have an edge. I think you might be too busy thinking about what you are going to write next - it might be better to slow down, have a read and have a think. |
|
By:
Jimmy - help me please, please somebody help me - I can feel my life ebbing away ffs
|
|
By:
Hmmm
Methane Magnet Joined: 08 Nov 11 So why the new account? |
|
By:
That could be for any number of reasons - is it relevant????
|
|
By:
fwiw - I bet Love Divine on here when it won the Oaks! - but that has no relevance - does it??
|
|
By:
Getting back to the opening question, I believe the best sport
to bet in, is the one you feel you know best, in my case football. Sometimes the market is slow to recognise that the play is not matching the expectancy, the outsider perhaps performing better than their illustrious opponents, especially when at home etc |
|
By:
MM
I trust that my old persona/role has now been suitably replaced and I can continue in retirement knowing that my replacement has well and truly arrived. ? Or would even the old me coming back be preferable to what you are facing now ? You sound distressed. |
|
By:
Fafh - this lad has got you beat hands down. You sometimes used to frustrate me a little bit (reading things that weren't there, misinterpreting the odd statement, being a bit pedantic, going off on a tangent) but this lad is something else!
|
|
By:
A new star is born...it's nearly Christmas after all
 |
|
By:
Yep.
On another thread he even beat me the master at my own game. |
|
By:
Maybe we could borrow 3 wise men from de football forum and put on a nativity
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
OK this is to help MM
Say you are a trader and you only trade pre-match. Generally you get 8 out of 10 correct. When you are correct you generally trade for 4 ticks and when you are wrong you are generally wrong by 6 ticks (because you always trade out before the event turns in-play). Each tick equates to about £10 profit or loss. So for 10 games £40 x 8 = £320 profit £60 x 2 = £120 loss. Total profit for 10 markets is £200. So "knowing" which way the market is going to go is your edge. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Is this what you were trying to convey to ROR MM. |
|
By:
ror let me explain....if you can predict the way a market will move 8 times out of 10 it would be hugely profitable (provided there are enough markets where you can predict)
It doesnt mean you will lose the two times you don't. Either you trade out at a loss on those bets or let the bets run. If you let the bets run they dont necessarily lose!! |
|
By:
There is nothing like hands on experience when it comes to the betting game.
Theoreticians like ror who either hardly ever bet or when they do they do in only very small amounts, are essentially irrelevant as commentators. I know this from personal experience. I am somewhat embarassed by my early forays on this forum. ( of course some might say that I should still be embarassed by some of my current forays ). I find that as my actual betting experiences grow ( particularly on the BF platform) the more my eyes are opened up to what some of the older hands have been saying all along. That is not to say that they are always right, but they do know more about how things actually go down. |
|
By:
Thanks UA - I had intended to post something along those lines (when the racing was over) but by then I had lost the will to live! - so thank you, my numbers would be a bit different to that but the principle is the same.
Clydebank - thanks also. |
|
By:
Clyde: But they must by definition lose!
Let's say I back at 1.9 hoping it moves to 1.8. 8 times out of 10 it gets to 1.8. If it doesn't get to 1.8 it must by definition have lost, or it would have got to 1.8 on it's way to 1.01! If the times it didn't get to 1.8 it has a chance of getting to 1.8, then it will be getting to 1.8 more often than the 8/10 specified! Maybe we're talking about different forms of trading. I guess you're talking of ante-post trading where you're trying to get on a "free bet" or green pre-race, then at the off you just either red-out when you don't make it or let it run. I think I'm talking about cricket trading where you just trade throughout the whole race. (A bit like in-running trading). |
|
By:
I get what's being said UA, but I'd speculate that it's possible that actually if you could predict movement 8 out of 10 times you're not making 4 ticks when you'd win if you applied a 6 tick stop loss.
|
|
By:
As for all the ad-hom "you only bet small stakes", why should the stake amount matter?
I'm not going to pretend that betting large is no different to betting small, it is because of liquidity, but my experience is still experience, and I'm still showing a 3 month and 30 day profit. I'd argue that liquidity doesn't matter under 100 quid, so really I could be better 10 times the amount I do easily and have made 10 times the profit. What makes you think your experience is an edge? Perhaps my lack of experience and ability to look rationally at markets is an edge. |
|
By:
ror - I think we are all talking about pre-off and you are talking about in-running.
Not sure how you could interpret any of my earlier posts as relating to in-play trading - but at least that explains the tangents! |
|
By:
Personally whilst I don't find it too hard to believe that certain people can predict to a pretty high percentage which way a market is likely to move, I do find it hard to believe they can equally regularly turn that into either reasonable profits given that they have to overcome always the bid and lay spread.
This is compensated in part by the commission offsets availabe in trading, but it's never enough imo. However this is exactly a subject where my last post particularly applies. I don't actually trade and so I am essentially talking theoretically here. If I did start to trade in volume like MM and others, then I might in fact find out that things turn out to be quite different in practice. |
|
By:
ror - I think we got off on the wrong foot (albeit because you went off on a tangent) - but hey, bygones!
However - I have to correct this......... ror 07 Dec 11 17:41 I'd argue that liquidity doesn't matter under 100 quid, so really I could be better 10 times the amount I do easily and have made 10 times the profit. If only it were that simple. I get matched at some unbelievable value (I mean truly unbelievable)...... for peanuts. If I could scale that up I would have retired years ago - sadly you cannot. It is much easier with small stakes - the smaller the stakes the easier - but you cannot always translate that directly to larger stakes. |
|
By:
So ror is now claiing that he has an edge in being able to look rationally at markets.
Is that implying that we ( others) don't ?. If so then that is hubris personified. You're getting to be a bit of a worry ror. |
|
By:
Geez MM, you didn't let me off so lightly in the early days of our head to heads.
Why the favouritism with ror ? I'm insanely jealous. |
|
By:
lol - i think the whole misunderstanding centres around - he has been referring to in-play trading for the last 2 hours, whilst I (and I think everybody else) were discussing pre-off trading.
If he does it again - then I will send the boys round - fair enough? |
|
By:
FAFH: I'm not claiming I do, I'm claiming it shouldn't be used as some kind of insult when the possibility is there. :)
MM: Oh, I wasn't suggesting it was possible to go from £20 stakes to £200 and make the same money, but the markets I bet on I reckon I could go from £2 to £20 and still get the same odds. :) p.s. I agree about mixing up what "trading" means. I come from cricket (and football), where trading almost always means in play, because the odds rarely move more than 1 or 2 ticks pre-game. I see in horse racing that odds move about a lot in the 10 minutes before the off and you could make money in that period, although I still don't really accept that it's more than just guessing because it's all so fast, what information can you have that others don't, but perhaps you have experience to know when odds have edged out further than they should from what's going on. p.p.s. Here's a cheerful story to cheer everyone up: I just won 46p backing Murphy on the snooker! Almost greened when he was 5-0 up (out of 11 frames) but the odds were 1.01/1.02; No way I was losing 4pence removing my liability! To win 6 games at a row even at evens would be 1/64th chance, and being 5-0 down it was clear he was a dog in the frame betting too! Of course what do I know, he came back to win the next 4 frames in a row, the 55 backer probably traded out for a nice profit then. He almost won 5 in a row too, but thankfully Murphy got incredibly lucky with a few missed shots he made and took the frame. 46p nailed on. |
|
By:
ror - fair enough - each to their own.
I don't play the cricket markets but I have to disagree with you about the lack of odds movement on the football markets prior to kick off. I have been watching (and trading in a small way) three of the Champions League match markets today (and the respective HT/FT markets) - there has been a massive amount of movement in all three - and this is not unusual. |
|
By:
I only dabble in soccer, so maybe it's just the soccer markets I watch then (prem league and big4 english in europe).
Even then it's never like the craziness 2 minutes before the horses are off when they're gating them up. (Don't know the correct term sorry.) |
|
By:
Man City have contracted 13 ticks in the time it took me to eat my dinner
 |
|
By:
I hope you were on the right side of that move MM.
Otherwise you might have expelled your dinner just as quickly ? |
|
By:
As a matter of general interest, do you know why this mkt. move has occurred, and was that a reason you cleverly forecasted it in private ( of course) ?.
|