Best Prices most often in the Premier League last season

It's qualified as follows on the VC(BV) website:

Snap shot data prices are taken, on average, every two hours (between 10am-8pm), five days before each game from every bookmaker on the Oddschecker panel, totaling 90 snapshots per game, per bookmaker.

I don't follow the early prices on the football regularly enough to know whether the exchanges are included in the comparison or to confirm the claims. In some markets VC and the other bookmakers would certainly compare favourably with the exchanges under the above qualifying criteria.

I'm waiting for the William Hill advert that's identical to the Betfair one for Golf but factors in 22.5% minimum commission payment for longstanding customers in the small print

Why is it krap ? I don't think they would make the claim
unless it was true, as it easily checked on. You say it's
clearly bull, so do you have the evidence that you are
right ?

I have to say in the sports and markets I bet on, Victor probably appear on oddschecker as best price more often than others. Not that I can get on anyway. I think it's primarily because they're slow reacting to market moves and don't take a bet. So basically because they're crap they can probably justify their claim.

I wanted to bet on the custard wrestling

kenilworth
24 Feb 12 09:24 Joined: 04 Nov 05 | Topic/replies: 7,967 | Blogger: kenilworth's blog
Why is it krap ? I don't think they would make the claim
unless it was true, as it easily checked on. You say it's
clearly bull, so do you have the evidence that you are
right ?

Obviously Betfair is better value. If PC is a consideration purple is better value.
If betting exchanges are excluded, Pinnacle is better value.

Just because they're best price on oddschecker, does not mean they're best price.

I understand it's explained in the small print, but it still seems misleading to me. A leisure bettor watching that ad might think they have a better chance of winning (or the more realistic among them will think they will pay the least for their entertainment), compared to betting anywhere else.

The implied 'best price you'll find bit' is the misleading part.

jt45
24 Feb 12 05:50 Joined: 18 Jul 10 | Topic/replies: 267 | Blogger: jt45's blog
It's qualified as follows on the VC(BV) website:

Snap shot data prices are taken, on average, every two hours (between 10am-8pm), five days before each game from every bookmaker on the Oddschecker panel, totaling 90 snapshots per game, per bookmaker.

I don't follow the early prices on the football regularly enough to know whether the exchanges are included in the comparison or to confirm the claims. In some markets VC and the other bookmakers would certainly compare favourably with the exchanges under the above qualifying criteria.


So you mean even if exchanges are included, they can 'get rid of them' by starting to measure at the time before there is liquidity? Obviously a case of hand picking the data that best fits the result you want. I shouldn't single out this bookie for that, as any other would probably do the same. It shouldn't be allowed though.


What shouldn't be allowed: Saying a bookie is best price, when they are actually only best price when the data used to measure this is chosen to fit with the outcome desired. Any objective study with realistic benchmarks, would not see this bookie come out on top.

90% of my footy accas are with VC as they are generally the best on oddschecker - obviously those bets arent in my own name as they closed my account down

That was the suggestion I was making with regard to any comparison with the exchanges under those conditions.

I agree that it's not a particularly fair comparison but provided they clearly detail the data used, as they have done in this case, I don't have any particular objection. I don't consider the advert particularly deceptive and certainly no more so than many of those used previously by other bookmakers and exchanges.

I didn't given the advert much credence originally and that remained the case after I had reviewed the data used. I suspect that would apply to most people who viewed it.

Investor, their claim(s) may be misleading but I'm sure
it will be factually correct, that is my point.

would be interesting to see if a complaint to the asa got anywhere. suspect not.

on a related subject, how long till PP are forced to take that ad with the trannies off?

I think its a fair claim by VC. I just had a look on odds checker and on some matches they were best price on all 3 selections and thats including Betfair. Their overrounds are currently a little over 102% so they're competitive with Betfair.

OK, I'm gonna take a small sample of tomorrow's EPL matches using only (traditional) bookie odds on oddschecker in addition to pinnacle.

I'll leave Betfair out of this:

6 matches.

For each selection a bookie gets 1 point if they are sole best price. If they share it, they get .5 sharing with 1 other, .33 sharing with 2 others and so on.

There are 6*3=18 selections, meaning 18 points to be spread amont the bookies.

Victor: 4.2
Pinny: 9.033

So in more than half of cases pinny trounced the oddschecker universe of bookies combined.

Disclaimer: Betfair and the other exchanges are still the best as we can trade here!

Also remember that on side markets like Correct Score and the Over/Unders, the traditional bookies are miles behind Betfair even factoring in 5% commission.

Investor : Saying a bookie is best price, when they are actually only best price when the data used to measure this is chosen to fit with the outcome desired.

Yes you're right. It's nothing new though, stats are cherry picked and twisted to give the required desired results in all walks of life. Good examples exist in the man made global warming industry, and in road safety where speed cameras are promoted using cherry picked data which ignore regression to the mean. They're all at it I'm afraid.