General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 124 comments are related to the topic:
fao catflop
fao catflop
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 124
|
By:
Eddie, you'd make a profit if you matched every 1.01
|
|
By:
do you have a link Cat?
|
|
By:
Even if you were matched in those matches where the correct price should be more like 1.0001 when you are matched ?
I'm thinking of matches where one team goes ahead 2-0 when the price was something like 1.02 - 1.03 when it was 1-0. |
|
By:
http://data.betfair.com/
Go crazy Bob. |
|
By:
thanks Bobbin
 |
|
By:
Eddie, if Cat is saying that, he'll have some pretty strong statistical proof behind him.
|
|
By:
Don't thank me yet Bob!!!
|
|
By:
Probably, but aren't there plenty om matches where 1.01 isn't matched, but you would have been matched if you had unattended keep lay bets @ 1.01 ?
|
|
By:
paulol
backin 1.01s . i would pay to see a youtube of that  |
|
By:
I would pay to see Paulol trying to make sense of data.betfair.com!!
|
|
By:
The whole point is that you lose less than 99% of the time and the wins more than compensate for the events where you get hoovered. But if your not up there at the front you won't get matched on the gubbings but you'll get hoovered on the rest.
My analysis was confined to horse racing and it was done pre keep bets so things m ay have changed. But I think it will be true of any market where bettors are diving into an event that is concluding. |
|
By:
Eddie, it will only work on very liquid markets
|
|
By:
Ok, but I still think tou will lose long term if you leave them unattended. It would be a "disaster" to leave a keep 1.01 lay up in several scenarios like the one I described earlier.
|
|
By:
Surely it depends how many markets you lose on?
|
|
By:
see Catflop for all your playing around this is a decent subject for people to discuss. fool
|
|
By:
He came back and and answered your questions, and now you're calling him a fool? I didn't think he'd lower himself to trying to explain things to you Paul, but he did. He actually hasn't made fun of you at all on this thread, and has been very patient towards you. And yet you're just being abusive back. You really are an unpleasant little so and so.
|
|
By:
He must be being ironic
|
|
By:
The sad thing is, when I first started reading the forum in 2010, there were plenty of informative threads, with the likes of Cat, Investor, Lori, Feck and co discussing various interesting aspects of 'proper' in-depth betting. Sadly, the forum has gradually become infested with idiots like Paul, talking about their 'mug' strategies, hurling abuse at each other, spending much of their time having silly little challenges, drunkenly reporting each other and discussing all of their alternative usernames.
This used to be a relatively sophisticated place, but the best posters don't bother much with it now. It seems the lunatics and low-lifes are now the ones in charge.  |
|
By:
Cooee, he says his research on this 1.01 thing was on horses and pre keep bets, so my guess is that it's not profitable doing this(even if you could get first in queue) in football if leaving bets unattended.
It probably could be profitable if you managed to get first in the queue and manage all your bets though, but that would heavily restrict the number of matches. |
|
By:
shame it's not like that now Bobbin.
i only call him a fool cos he played me for one since the "golden nugget" night and made me pester him over and over to get to this stage where it proves to be a valid discussion point. no need! |
|
By:
Eddie, please remember one of my testicles is on the line here
 |
|
By:
seems he's also "changed" for the worse since 2010
|
|
By:
Lol, "made me pester him"
|
|
By:
Cat's 100% right... It is profitable... it's just not implementable, because (I'm reasonably sure) Betfair give priority access to new markets to someone so you can never get 1st position in the queue.
|
|
By:
basically cat has been someone what "called out" here and he's not in his comfort zone
|
|
By:
who would they give priority to?
|
|
By:
*somewhat called out sorry
|
|
By:
From what I understand, Cat did look into it and decided a lot of hard work would be needed relative to the actual profit. As you say, it's unlikely to be a load-and-leave strategy. This is the sort of thing I may look into in the future, but it's a little sophisticated for me at this point...
It was actually Bob who was (supposedly) interested in the topic. I was just here trying to add a little extra low-level texture, as I felt certain Bob wouldn't ask anything that was pertinent. Obviously, had I known you were going to participate, I would have kept quiet and just left it to you and Cat to drive things along! |
|
By:
That last post was aimed at Eddie - I didn't realise half a page of posts would have appeared in the space of three minutes!!
|
|
By:
Just when you thought Bob was taking all of this in..........here we have him on another thread................
bob.vegas 09 May 12 16:11 so what is the golden nugget strategy? you've never said...  |
|
By:
Biscuit claiming he knew all along it was being first in the queue for 1.01's
very much doubt it. why couldn't he say that the last 2 weeks when asked? EXPOSED BIGTIME |
|
By:
made me pester him over and over to get to this stage
Cat didn't 'make you pester' him Bob. That just comes naturally to you! You pester and harry people until they give in or quit. If you asked fewer questions, thought more deeply about what people were saying, and treated everybody with more respect, the likes of Cat would be more likely to engage with you. You shouldn't be calling him a fool when he's tried to answer your questions patiently. You were abusive towards Biscuit earlier when he was, again, trying to answer your questions sensibly and carefully. Why are you so hellbent on driving away people who are trying to treat you with respect? You constantly tell us you come in peace, but you only actually come in peace if you're getting what you want - which is you dominating every thread you're on, and having everything spelled out for you. And by the way, Cat did essentially answer this question for you several days ago. Everybody else knew what he meant except you. You should probably draw some conclusions from that. |
|
By:
We've been over this before Bob
1. I did try to reply to your PM but you'd been banned again before i got the chance so it wouldn't let me. 2. You asked me so much (and were quite rude) so i chose not to after that 3. Catflop told you anyway 4. it was obvious Have a nice day Bob, stick at it mate, another 2 years on here and you might learn how to back AND lay. |
|
By:
Biscuit claiming he knew all along it was being first in the queue for 1.01's
Bob, honestly, Cat did make that pretty clear a few days ago. I understood it, and I'm not particularly bright. I have absolutely no reason to doubt that Biscuit also understood it. It was, in fact, fairly obvious after Cat had guided you to the part of the quote where the chap was talking about having got himself to the head of the queue. |
|
By:
JLivermore, are you sayiing it would be profitable even when leaving bets unattended ? And if so , how do you know ? Wouldn't there be plenty of matches where 1.01 are never matched, but would have been if you had 1.01 keep lay bets in the market ?
And also, do your research tell you how much you could have had @ 1.01 in order to make a profit ? It's obviously easier to make long term profit with £ 2 first in queue rather than having larger amounts up there. There would also be a tipping point where the amount up would be to big to make it profitable. |
|
By:
ok bizzo but there was one thread on a South American footy match maybe friday night where i asked you over and over. why no answer there?
|
|
By:
Because we're not at your beck and call you arrogant little toad.
|
|
By:
http://community.betfair.com/football/go/thread/view/94070/29089979/univ-de-chile-v-colo-colo?post_id=519160347#519160347
Univ de Chile v Colo Colo game Bizzo? why the ignorance? i also asked you on all your Dawsy ttt threads and hudson ttt threads to no avail? |
|
By:
I don't know whether to
or to |
|
By:
Now I know.
|