fao catflop

Cooee, there is no direct way of telling where you are in the queue.  You can't be jumped.

So if you were, at one time, the only person to have stacked their order up, and you then just stayed there, would that place you at the front of the queue?  Or is it not that straightforward?

Yes, and in that case you would know you were in front.

And I do appreciate that, most of the time in most markets, there's bound to be somebody already stacked at 1.01.

Certainly in the liquid markets, yes.  Which is where you need to be for this to work.

Bobbin learning too here

Cat - why is it a good long term strategy?

Too?

Bob, can't you see why being the first person to match at 1.01 might give you an advantage over the other people getting matched shortly after?

bad grammar dear?

oh i see. i'm trying cat.

is it to do with value and probability?

obv your gonna lose money 99% of the time

Well if you hold a 1.01, who's beating your price??

Even if you can't see why, and it's pretty obvious, you can prove it, as I did, by downloading and analysing betfair's historic data.  You don't have to be privileged to do this.....

You can't just be first in queue and leave it unattended though, like this theios dude did. He just got lucky.

You think Bob's up to analysing Betfair's historical data, Cat???  You have more faith in him than I do!!

Eddie, you'd make a profit if you matched every 1.01

do you have a link Cat?

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.

http://data.betfair.com/

Go crazy Bob.

thanks Bobbin

Eddie, if Cat is saying that, he'll have some pretty strong statistical proof behind him.

Don't thank me yet Bob!!!

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 ?

paulol
backin
1.01s
.
i
would
pay
to
see
a
youtube
of
that

I would pay to see Paulol trying to make sense of data.betfair.com!!   

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.

Eddie, it will only work on very liquid markets

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.

Surely it depends how many markets you lose on?

see Catflop for all your playing around this is a decent subject for people to discuss. fool

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.

He must be being ironic

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.

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.

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!

Eddie, please remember one of my testicles is on the line here

seems he's also "changed" for the worse since 2010

Lol, "made me pester him"

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.

basically cat has been someone what "called out" here and he's not in his comfort zone

who would they give priority to?

*somewhat called out sorry

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!

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!!

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Because we're not at your beck and call you arrogant little toad.

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?

I don't know whether to or to

Now I know.

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)

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!

this thread is 2 weeks overdue cos of biscuit and cat tbf

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).

Bob, its your thread, how can it be my fault it's two weeks late?

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

It will be if youre first in the queue

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

It absolutely does because the bets at the front are taken first before the true odds have fallen that far

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

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

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

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

...........which often happens in illiquid markets

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

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.

Think about it this way, if you layed the first £100 in every queue and backed the last £100 you would make profit, yes?

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

Ok, thanks for the debate. I still think I'm right though :p

catfleppo you're right in the case where after an event (goal etc), an outcome has probability ,1%

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

catfleppo you're right in the case where after an event (goal etc), an outcome has probability ,1%

eugh posting glitches:

catfleppo you're right in the case where after an event (goal etc), an outcome has probability ,1%

somebody kill me, do inequalities signs cause some kind of posting problem?

bob is labouring under the delusion that people owe him answers. and that the more questions he asks, the more answers he's owed.

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.

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.

...but equally, there's nothing below it. so it has to cover everything from completely impossible to 1.5% chance.

Yes!

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!

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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?

?

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?

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"

Lol

" Twunt".
Now that I have to add to my vocabularly.
Very useful for telling off colour jokes atqt our local church community meetings.

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?

who said the top line Rob

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

This is a classic case of the brain at work influencing the choices we make which are bad for us. In this particular case people had a huge advantage being at the front of the queue.
In similar cases they would also, but does being at the front of the queue have more advantage more often. The answer is no.
The number of times per year a horse leads by 8 lengths and falls at the last is insignificant to the number of times people pre empt an event anyway. It's quite likely now that fingers have been burnt, this result won't happen for quite some time. There is more merit in laying at $1.02 than $1.01, in fact the most profitable range is between $1.02 and $1.06.

Anyone who backs a horse who hasn't cleared the last jump at those odds, needs to be checked into a clinic.


But then again, if they are first in the queue, there will be occasions especially in tight or unexpected finishes that they will be first matched on the winner and not on the loser.
So they will lose where someone further down the queue would lose nothing. This happens far more often than the example of a faller at the last, ergo it balances out.

A couple of years ago I studied laying horse races at 1.01 to 1.06 in some depth, I have records covering about a years worth of races, but from memory most of the money waiting at 1.01 actually cancels before it's matched, i.e. there used to be around 10k waiting to lay at 1.01 on every race but a look at the graph would show only 3-4k matched after the race, so the big 1.01 layer didn't do it blind he cancelled most of it before it was ever matched.

What the horse markets are like these days I don't know, but back then I found that Friday to Sunday showed the most profit laying up to 1.06, and assumed it was because more recreational punters played on those days resulting in stiffer competition to grab the waiting lay money too early when the horse was really perhaps a 1.16 shot.

That gave me the the strategy of loading up lays at 1.1 and below, then cancelling the lot as the price reached 1.3 or so, the theory being that I'd only get matched when a mad backer takes the bait too early giving me a good value lay, but you need the patience of a saint to play that game manually every race. I think it would be a profitable strategy if botted up though, I haven't looked for ages but wouldn't be surprised if someone was doing that.

I suspect the cross-matcher has now hindered laying at very low prices for the past couple of years (not sure when it officially started); whereas someone may have put a large amount previously on a horse that seems home and hosed, let's say at 1.1, nowadays it may only get matched down to a few points above 1.1, with the rest being matched as backs on the rest of the field.

The Saturday meetings still seems to show better results though, maybe because it's a lot more competitive with more races being decided close to the finish (as well as the recreational punters).