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:
are you sayiing it would be profitable even when leaving bets unattended ?
> Yes And if so , how do you know ? >I tested it 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 ? >I think (almost?) all matches have an order for 1.01 there throughout the game - so the situation you describe is not the reality 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. >Agreed - I didn't get this far because I noticed the problem I mentioned earlier, but your desired bets would have to be small relaitve to bankroll anyway (because you will lose so often) |
|
By:
bob.vegas
09 May 12 16:00 Joined: 27 Apr 12 | Topic/replies: 920 | Blogger: bob.vegas's blog see Catflop for all your playing around this is a decent subject for people to discuss. fool You really don't deserve answers to your questions bob! |
|
By:
this thread is 2 weeks overdue cos of biscuit and cat tbf
|
|
By:
Spot on JLivermore, the value diminishes the greater the stake so there is a fine tuning required to optimise profit. This would be confused by the fact it's likely to be different for different market types and possibly the markets would vary individually depending on amounts trading or other factors. I also found that profit can be made similarly at 1.02, 1.03 ...1.06 so there is a lot of variants to analyse for anyone who can get to first place in the queues. I couldn't so I gave up assuming someone was already doing it better than I could (be bothered).
|
|
By:
Bob, its your thread, how can it be my fault it's two weeks late?
|
|
By:
catfleppo 09 May 12 15:01
I would stake the smaller and most wrinkled of my two nuggets on the fact that if you can consistently get matched first laying 1.01 in liquid, in-play markets you will show a long term profit. It's a big 'if' though.... can't agree with this I am afraid, it will only be a long term profit maker if it's value to lay at 1.01 |
|
By:
It will be if youre first in the queue
|
|
By:
I am first in the queue to lay Man UTD at 1.01 to beat the local drunks and you are saying I would be ok Long term. If it's not value to lay / back thaen it doesn't matter where you are in the queue. If it's value then it's a different story
|
|
By:
It absolutely does because the bets at the front are taken first before the true odds have fallen that far
|
|
By:
No it doesn't . If you are first in the queue and you are laying poor value then you will go broke. If you are last in the queue and laying poor value you will go broke. In other words if your backs/lays are not at value long term you will go broke regardless of where you are in the queue
|
|
By:
If you're first in the queue you stand more chance of being matched before the event swings towards a gubbing, that's where the value is
|
|
By:
if your first in the queue of course you have more chance of getting matched, I am not disputing that. Being first in the queue does not mean it is value though. Anyway I will leave it at that, best of luck to you
 |
|
By:
There is also value to be had hoovering up the last 1.01 lays in the queue after the true odds have dipped below 1.01
|
|
By:
...........which often happens in illiquid markets
|
|
By:
catflaqpo 09 May 12 18:42
There is also value to be had hoovering up the last 1.01 lays in the queue after the true odds have dipped below 1.01 I am sorry that is totally contradictory |
|
By:
Not at all, whether a bet is value depends on the true odds of the event which is different for bets matched at opposite ends of the queue when the market is in play.
|
|
By:
Think about it this way, if you layed the first £100 in every queue and backed the last £100 you would make profit, yes?
|
|
By:
No its contradictory to what you were saying earlier.
Value is betting bigger odds than the true odds ( opposite if laying ) which is fine as I think we both know that and are saying the same thing here. You said that a long term profitable strategy is being first in the queue to lay 1.01. I am saying that is wrong, if you are not obtaining value it doesn't matter where you are in the queue, you will lose long term. Anyway we seem to disagree so I have made my point , so no hard feelings, I just don't agree with your statement |
|
By:
Ok, thanks for the debate. I still think I'm right though :p
|
|
By:
 |
|
By:
catfleppo you're right in the case where after an event (goal etc), an outcome has probability ,1%
|
|
By:
7:40 FFos Las
Martial Law falls at the last when clear £1,004 matched @1.01 £3,145 unmatched So the people at the front of the queue had the chance of him falling on their side The people at the back would have been hoping he somehow lost an 8 length lead on the flat |
|
By:
catfleppo you're right in the case where after an event (goal etc), an outcome has probability ,1%
|
|
By:
eugh posting glitches:
catfleppo you're right in the case where after an event (goal etc), an outcome has probability ,1% |
|
By:
somebody kill me, do inequalities signs cause some kind of posting problem?
|
|
By:
bob is labouring under the delusion that people owe him answers. and that the more questions he asks, the more answers he's owed.
|
|
By:
I'd be confident of making a profit if I was first in the queue laying at 1.01, if I watched every market I was in at this price and made an intelligent judgement about whether or not to cancel after an event.
1.01's a fascinating price point on BF. the logic governing it's just so different from every other price. |
|
By:
The thing about 1.01 is that the next increment is 1.02, is double!. That's why there is so much value at that end of the market.
|
|
By:
...but equally, there's nothing below it. so it has to cover everything from completely impossible to 1.5% chance.
|
|
By:
Yes!
|
|
By:
Enjoyed this thread today. Even posted from the train which I don't usually bother with.
I hope if nothing else bob has gained some appreciation of how much analysis, thought and creativity goes into developing a winning strategy. Winners here are not blessed or privileged or even lucky! |
|
By:
Agree with cat 100%, there's a huge difference between being matched at the front or the end of the queue, and at that end of the market you could be laying 1.01 when the inverse is 55.0 to back, i.e. backing at nearly double the price. So for instance Bob, would you rather lay O'sullivan at 1.01 to win the frame or back Carter at 55.0? Simplistic example but the point is there.
It's also possible to get 'time value' on highly liquid markets by being the first in the queue, i.e. lay the 0-0 at 10.0 with 20k behind you in the queue, then back it back 4 or 5 minutes later just before the 10.0 drops to 9.8 for free exposure to a goal (win). Not rocket science, but news to some maybe. |
|
By:
If always being the first to lay at 1.01 is profitable then it will be much more profitable if you know when to cancel that bet, because like Eddie says there are plenty of matches where the true odds go from 1.02-1.10 to far below 1.01 after a goal. (Funnily enough I would have cancelled my 1.01 lay of Barcelona because of the sending off.)
|
|
By:
Of course, if you can add intelligence you can add value but you might want to evaluate whether the extra profit is worth the labour.
|
|
By:
Bob, its your thread, how can it be my fault it's two weeks late?
it has created lots of debate and disagreement it seems so worth pursuing it's your fault cat because you blantanly strung me along for 2 weeks each time i put this to you on many threads. why is that? |
|
By:
Bob, you have a strange expectation that everyone has a duty to answer your questions - where does that come from, I wonder?
Anyway now that the debate has occurred, in considerable raw and complex detail, what is your thinking on it? |
|
By:
 ? |
|
By:
I am a massive fan of sport and i want become a professional gambler!
Why aren't you a professional already if you're so in the know? |
|
By:
edbet - there seems to be a typo in your post. you wrote "follow edbet... etc" when clearly what you meant to write was "I am a massive spamming twunt with nothing whatsoever to contribute"
|
|
By:
Lol
|