Based on LEVEL stakes.......would be "best"

how do u measure ur edge?

I always like to keep mine the same height, so I've cut a length of wood to match the height and use it during trimming.

looks like nobody understood my analysis, thought about giving a detailed analysis but looks like no interst. anyways i will try once again with  an anlogy to highlight the problem of using profit per stake as a measure of edge. (i am assuming here we all have agreed to use profit per stake as measure).

what this measure does is it will lump all stakes at difernt odds(risk level) and profits at differnt odds(risk level) without any consideration for odds . i am not saying stake level matters. i am not saying whetehr it is back or lay matters. what i am saying is the ood for each back or lay stake matters.

the analogy  is if u analyze the profitablity of a portfolio of investements, do u lump all the wins and liablities together without separating the invetements according to thir underlying risk? this is what u are doing when u aggregate all stakes and profits together without consideration for risk which most of the time will be adequately measured by the odds.

This is the reason i mentioned to separate odds according to their odds before using the above formula. i hope it is clear.

Any complicated combination of stake/liability is not going to answer your original question.

You said you weren't happy with the level of fluctuation in your results - that's precisely it. It seemed like you wanted to have an objective measure to test how much of the profit track record was luck and how much was skill before taking it all a bit more seriously (a step that I suspect most people don't take).

I looked at my bets today and my profit was around 0.30% of the total stakes of all bets. I am happy with that because the strategy consistently made small profits if I look at it over a single market, a day, a week etc. If I had to ride large swings in the bank to get that 0.30% then it would not be a good strategy, but profit per stake is not going to differentiate between the two scenarios.

Headache jimmy ?
I have.

if u dont have good to say. shut up ! life is too short to spend it acting like an this

what the hell? talk like a man.

Have you been drinking mate ?
If not, then maybe you should have a couple to calm you down.

Why is it so complicated?
Why make it complicated?

There are two possibilities for calculating an edge.

Net Profit divided by total stake turned over x 100 = Profit On Turnover (edge)

Gross return divided by total stake turned over x 100 = Return On Investment. (edge)

They will reflect the same percentages only one includes the stake. The end result is the same.

Calculating back edge and lay edge are exactly the same formula, but incorporating liability is flawed, because liability is included in the return which makes up the profit or loss.

You double dipped.
So you made the calculation, and then you made it again, it's like you put your whole face in it.
Just have one bite.....and end it.

Script courtesy of Seinfeld

BTO - I'm with u - how there can be 130+ posts for a simple question that has a definite answer is beyond me.

Well calculating profit on liability is like staking your back bank as if every bet will lose.
It just doesn't make rational or logical sense.
Why is it so hard for people to grasp that liability is included in your gross return or nett profit and loss.

Maybe it's the reason why we see all this lay the draw and Schalke04 posts.
The odds just don't add up, although it looks good on paper (for a while).
Peter Webb did a study a long time ago, where he backed all the favourites early and layed off late.
The result was exactly breakeven, but a loss after commission.
He would lose lots of little bits and every now and then win on one big steamer, but all the little losses exactly cancelled out the gains on the steamer.
Think of lay the draw like this.
All the trading videos never show when things go bad, I mean real bad.
They don't show how a late withdrawal can send you broke for the week, how Betfair server crashes can leave you losing an entire week's profit, how a bookmaker dumping huge money 40 ticks below the current price and hoovering the lot can send you into near bankruptcy for the week.
Sure you can have multiple banks and failsafe triggers, but how long will it take to make up the loss?
The fact that this thread has so many replies and no resolution even though the answer has been given on several occasions, leads me to believe that very few actually have an edge, or have ever calculated it, or ever done any kind of research or data modelling at all.

There are posters that obviously have an edge, they are blatantly obvious to me by their answers on various threads ;)

Jeez...

If only there was a tab to ignore all dividebyzero errors!

Ok, I know everybody loves coin-tossing examples:


I hate them!

But...

Punter A backs heads on two seperate coin tosses each day for £10 each time at evens. At the end of a month he's (yes he) is £10 in profit having made a total of £600 worth of back bets.

After 60 tosses, it's unlikely he's up a tenner, but to indulge -
He has made a 1.67% profit, this does not mean he has a 1.67% edge.
Divide his profit by his bet size and it means his profit is reliant on the outcome of one toss.
So his 1.67% profit is reliant on one result.
Again 1.67% profit is a 60/1 shot.

Punter B backs heads at 2.01 in early prices and manages to back tails at 2.01 on the same toss just before kick-off, both £10 bets. So each day he locks in 10p and at the end of the month he has £3 profit having made a total of £600 worth of bets.


Firstly, he's bet on half as many tosses according to the scenario, but had twice as many bets. Secondly he has an extremely stupid bookie.
But...
He has made a 0.50% profit, this does not mean he has a 0.50% edge.
However, in this scenario he has made 10p for every $20.00 invested and made this every single day without a loss.

Who do you think has the greatest edge?
Punter B by a country mile.
Punter A made a better profit, but Punter B is 100% probability of continued success based on past results alone.
Punter A has a 60/1 chance of getting lucky.

In the real world, Punter A will break even after losing his tenner.
Punter B will continue to make his 0.50% edge if his bookie doesn't go broke or ban him.

ffs Punter A has made 7 quid more than Punter B and you still think Punter B has the edge...ffs

Jimmy, punter A got lucky against the odds of probability.
He will lose his tenner profit in the long run.

He beat punter B because he got lucky.
Punter B has an edge.

Let's say I spin roulette and fluke a number after 34 spins.
Because I won doesn't mean I have an edge, the house has the edge, and I got lucky.
Even if I never play again, I got lucky, the house still has the edge because someone will fill my shoes and bet unders, therefore they will reclaim any loss through the next mug, because the odds are in their favour.

Trevh,

Jabmast : Backing 100 (and the results coming up like a 20 shot)
or Laying 1.01 (and the results coming up like a 1.05 shot) will roughly equate to a similar edge of around 4.2%

Did you mean 400% edge? Backing 20.0 shots at 100.0 is a fine art :)

No, I mean 4.2%, as in a nominal bankroll will increase optimally by this amount every time you manage to get one of these bets. Yes, I used an example which is fairly far fetched (getting 100 about a 20 shot), in real-life, any long-term profitable player's edge on here will be way less than 4%.

I'd go so far as to say, on this measurement (and I am in no means saying it is definitive, just the calculation that I find useful and can produce meaningful comparisons with) that the level of edge of the majority of long-term winners on here will be less than 0.1%.

OK I bet Frankel and he wins by 6 lengths and I stop betting forever.
You trade markets and win less than I do, but have never lost in a month.
You continue trading, but I beat you in profit from one bet.
Who has the edge?