General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Which is most important?
Show More
Both equally important...... a sound staking plan is vital to sucess but you also need to avoid poor value selections in order to show long term profit.
IMO the most important betting requirment is discipline.............without this you are destined to lose.
IMO the most important betting requirment is discipline.............without this you are destined to lose.
Pretty much the same as everything else in life.
Unless perhaps you are a rock star.
Even then, the disciplined ones last longer.
Unless perhaps you are a rock star.
Even then, the disciplined ones last longer.
If you take 'any' price , the best staking plan is of no use whatsoever .
VALUE is all that matters .
VALUE is all that matters .
Been done to death this subject and I agree with Zealot, as
there is only one staking plan.
there is only one staking plan.
Without value you will lose whatever your staking plan.
Maybe the point is really that you can probably destroy a value strategy by bad staking.
I said something different, kenny.
As frog says staking is important to keep a value strategy from going bust. Clever staking can increase the profit for value strategy.
Ay system without value loses.
So the answer to the op = "value"
As frog says staking is important to keep a value strategy from going bust. Clever staking can increase the profit for value strategy.
Ay system without value loses.
So the answer to the op = "value"
Cat
Are you really so absolutely sure that without value you are doomed, irregardless of your staking or money mgt. skills.
I win and I'm pretty sure that I make an inordinate amount of bad value wagers, simply because I do not approach matters with finding value predominantly in mind.
Am I just lucky then ?
Have I lucked onto some form of subconscious value finding perhaps ?
Are you really so absolutely sure that without value you are doomed, irregardless of your staking or money mgt. skills.
I win and I'm pretty sure that I make an inordinate amount of bad value wagers, simply because I do not approach matters with finding value predominantly in mind.
Am I just lucky then ?
Have I lucked onto some form of subconscious value finding perhaps ?
I know your answer I think.
Let me have a shot.
Without knowing what I do how you can possibly say whether I am finding value or not.
Correct ?
But the point I'm really trying to make is that my betting strategy is not value driven in any form or manner.
Pretty much the same as I invest in stock mkts.
Money mgt.& spreading the risk, taking losses early, letting profits run etc etc.
All pretty basic stuff.
I mean I bet on football teams whose names I can't even spell, in countries I've never set foot in, with players from backgrounds and cultures I have no concept of.
Let me have a shot.
Without knowing what I do how you can possibly say whether I am finding value or not.
Correct ?
But the point I'm really trying to make is that my betting strategy is not value driven in any form or manner.
Pretty much the same as I invest in stock mkts.
Money mgt.& spreading the risk, taking losses early, letting profits run etc etc.
All pretty basic stuff.
I mean I bet on football teams whose names I can't even spell, in countries I've never set foot in, with players from backgrounds and cultures I have no concept of.
Look at this woman at this time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kafRnGuCLEs
Frog, I would say quite categorically that you are finding value if you are profiting long term. Whether you seek it actively or not is irrelevant.
It is theoretically possible to have a protracted lucky run just like its possible for a roulette table to spin red twenty times in a row but the longer you go on making money the more likely it is that you are finding value rather than lucking out,
It is theoretically possible to have a protracted lucky run just like its possible for a roulette table to spin red twenty times in a row but the longer you go on making money the more likely it is that you are finding value rather than lucking out,
Well Cat I suppose it's all a bit of a non-argument really.
If you're winning long term, then it goes without saying that you must be beating the odds on offer and as such are finding value.
But I don't adjust my bet sizes on the basis of any mathematically calculated value price.
So I'm damned if I know how I'm getting the value I apparently am getting.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth I suppose.
If you're winning long term, then it goes without saying that you must be beating the odds on offer and as such are finding value.
But I don't adjust my bet sizes on the basis of any mathematically calculated value price.
So I'm damned if I know how I'm getting the value I apparently am getting.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth I suppose.
"taking losses early, letting profits run"
Both of these reasons are probably 'value seeking'. You take losses early because when they happen things are likely to get worse (creating negative value) and you let profits run because when a bet is in profit it is likely to get better (creating positive value). You don't need to evaluate a bet as value or not in order for it to BE value.
Personally I think everyone who is in profit here either:
gets value and knows it
gets value and doesn't know it
is lucky
Here is how I see the answer to the question:
It seems easier to me to 'not stake too much' than to 'Get Value'
Both of these reasons are probably 'value seeking'. You take losses early because when they happen things are likely to get worse (creating negative value) and you let profits run because when a bet is in profit it is likely to get better (creating positive value). You don't need to evaluate a bet as value or not in order for it to BE value.
Personally I think everyone who is in profit here either:
gets value and knows it
gets value and doesn't know it
is lucky
Here is how I see the answer to the question:
| Long term outcome | Gets Value | Does not Get Value |
| Stakes too much | losses | losses |
| Does not stake too much | profits | losses |
It seems easier to me to 'not stake too much' than to 'Get Value'
ZEALOT Joined: 15 Sep 09
Replies: 4105 08 Oct 12 22:15
If you take 'any' price , the best staking plan is of no use whatsoever .
VALUE is all that matters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
catflmasppo Joined: 12 Sep 10
Replies: 370 09 Oct 12 06:59
Without value you will lose whatever your staking plan
Is what ZEALOT said and cat said, not the same?
Replies: 4105 08 Oct 12 22:15
If you take 'any' price , the best staking plan is of no use whatsoever .
VALUE is all that matters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
catflmasppo Joined: 12 Sep 10
Replies: 370 09 Oct 12 06:59
Without value you will lose whatever your staking plan
Is what ZEALOT said and cat said, not the same?
No, the 2 statements are completely different points of view !!!!
does it even matter if they are similar? im sure the forum police will turn a blind eye just this once
If people think the postings are different, that's
ok by me as I'd rather do something else. GL
ok by me as I'd rather do something else. GL
oohhh... i love a bit of pedantry
ZEALOT: VALUE is all that matters
catflmasppo: Without value you will lose whatever your staking plan
Is what ZEALOT said and cat said, not the same?
Zealot says Value is ALL THAT MATTERS, catflmasppo says Value MATTERS(presumably amongst other things)
ZEALOT: VALUE is all that matters
catflmasppo: Without value you will lose whatever your staking plan
Is what ZEALOT said and cat said, not the same?
Zealot says Value is ALL THAT MATTERS, catflmasppo says Value MATTERS(presumably amongst other things)
You need a staking plan that will sustain your bankroll long enough for your value to show returns. A good staking plan with bad value bets is just a way of keeping you from going under more quickly.
A good staking plan ? Is there such an animal ?
Please explain how it works.
Please explain how it works.
ratchet staking is as basic as they come and its easy to follow and makes a deal of common sense...
Firstly you should have calculated your betting bank (This is personal to you)
For this example I will use £1000
So your first win bet will be 1000 x 3% = £30
This remains at £30 until your bank increases with winnings.
In other words you only recalculate your stake once your betting bank goes over £1000
Lets say the first bet wins at 2/1, your new bank will be: 30 x 2 = 60 + 1000 = £1060
So your next win bet will be 1060 x 3% = £31.80
If you then get a couple of losers, remember that the stake stays at £31.80 until enough winners come in to increase your betting bank to over £1060 this time.
The only time the stake decreases is when you take profits from your betting bank. Make sure you do take profits from time to time, but recalculate your lower stake using the 3% rule.
Its that simple, but you will find very powerful because over time you will have winnings on winnings. It’s like accumulative interest, it starts of slowly at first but soon increases rapidly.
Firstly you should have calculated your betting bank (This is personal to you)
For this example I will use £1000
So your first win bet will be 1000 x 3% = £30
This remains at £30 until your bank increases with winnings.
In other words you only recalculate your stake once your betting bank goes over £1000
Lets say the first bet wins at 2/1, your new bank will be: 30 x 2 = 60 + 1000 = £1060
So your next win bet will be 1060 x 3% = £31.80
If you then get a couple of losers, remember that the stake stays at £31.80 until enough winners come in to increase your betting bank to over £1060 this time.
The only time the stake decreases is when you take profits from your betting bank. Make sure you do take profits from time to time, but recalculate your lower stake using the 3% rule.
Its that simple, but you will find very powerful because over time you will have winnings on winnings. It’s like accumulative interest, it starts of slowly at first but soon increases rapidly.
basically if you bust your bank staking only 3% then youre in the wrong game
FAFH : So I'm damned if I know how I'm getting the value I apparently am getting.
If you're doing pretty much the same thing all the time, it sounds like you've found a market that consistently forms at the wrong price, they do exist. Less than 10000 bets and it could be just luck though IMO.
If you're doing pretty much the same thing all the time, it sounds like you've found a market that consistently forms at the wrong price, they do exist. Less than 10000 bets and it could be just luck though IMO.
Kenilworth : Is what ZEALOT said and cat said, not the same?
To me it is the same yes, I was going to say the same thing too but in different words but there's no point :)
To me it is the same yes, I was going to say the same thing too but in different words but there's no point :)
Ratchet staking is ok SCOM but if you get a run of losses you'll be recovering the bank using lesser stakes than you lost at, which is not good.
Level staking is the best IMO, using a small enough percentage of the bank to not have to reduce staking during losing runs unless hit by a rare exceptionally prolonged drastic losing run. I use 0.2% of the bank as a stake, withdraw a wage every week (even on losing weeks), and increase the bank every 3 months or so, so yes ratcheting up but not based on short periods of results.
Level staking is the best IMO, using a small enough percentage of the bank to not have to reduce staking during losing runs unless hit by a rare exceptionally prolonged drastic losing run. I use 0.2% of the bank as a stake, withdraw a wage every week (even on losing weeks), and increase the bank every 3 months or so, so yes ratcheting up but not based on short periods of results.
I see cat used the expression ''clever staking''.
Please explain.
Please explain.
Clever staking is varying the stake according to the perceived value in each bet.
Sensible staking is level stakes at a low percentage of bank.
Stupid staking is high percentage of bank or varying the stake according to previous results e.g martingale
All imo of course
Sensible staking is level stakes at a low percentage of bank.
Stupid staking is high percentage of bank or varying the stake according to previous results e.g martingale
All imo of course
"Sensible staking" is "LEVEL STAKES"???????
LEVEL STAKES indicates that person BACKING that way has not much of an "edge".....and is a very crude way of backing.....IMO.
LEVEL STAKES is good for comparison purposes if BACKING being compared between 2 people.
Agree with your first sentence above CF
LEVEL STAKES indicates that person BACKING that way has not much of an "edge".....and is a very crude way of backing.....IMO.
LEVEL STAKES is good for comparison purposes if BACKING being compared between 2 people.
Agree with your first sentence above CF
Well, 1/3 isn't bad 
I don't think anyone should look beyond level stakes until they have a clearly proven edge. Even then you have to have a really good understanding of where your edge is coming from to implement something like Kelly. I can often see value bets but quantifying the value is a whole different level of sophistication.
I don't think anyone should look beyond level stakes until they have a clearly proven edge. Even then you have to have a really good understanding of where your edge is coming from to implement something like Kelly. I can often see value bets but quantifying the value is a whole different level of sophistication.
Clever staking is varying the stake according to the perceived value in each bet.
Yes you're right of course Cat, but I find that the greater the perceived value the less you will likely get matched, which is completely normal and expected.
DFC, I can't see that level stakes means little edge, it's just sensible safe and sound as Cat said above. The only way I could improve on my level staking is to get more matched on the greater value prices, but as said above the closer you get to the true price the more you can get matched, if you aim too high you'll miss the boat altogether.
Yes you're right of course Cat, but I find that the greater the perceived value the less you will likely get matched, which is completely normal and expected.
DFC, I can't see that level stakes means little edge, it's just sensible safe and sound as Cat said above. The only way I could improve on my level staking is to get more matched on the greater value prices, but as said above the closer you get to the true price the more you can get matched, if you aim too high you'll miss the boat altogether.
Rowing, sailing and yachting aren't main events for me, so missing the boat altogether isn't a problem.
Clever staking and sensible staking sound rather similar, but the answer is that to all intents and purposes, level staking using 2% of your bank is about as good as it gets.
Fractional Kelly will prove more profitable if your estimates of your edge are accurate, but in sports this is not as easy as it might seem, and 2% is a good compromise.
Remember, if you are not profitable to level stakes, no staking plan in the world can help you in the long term.
Clever staking and sensible staking sound rather similar, but the answer is that to all intents and purposes, level staking using 2% of your bank is about as good as it gets.
Fractional Kelly will prove more profitable if your estimates of your edge are accurate, but in sports this is not as easy as it might seem, and 2% is a good compromise.
Remember, if you are not profitable to level stakes, no staking plan in the world can help you in the long term.
Depends on your average odds range really cpfc, 2% would bankrupt me several times a year!
trev
catflappo Joined: 11 Nov 11
Replies: 734 12 Oct 12 21:56
Clever staking is varying the stake according to the perceived value in each bet.
Reads a bit vague to me. Varying stake, presumably increasing on the percieved
value (upwards no doubt) seems more like common sense rather than clever.
Replies: 734 12 Oct 12 21:56
Clever staking is varying the stake according to the perceived value in each bet.
Reads a bit vague to me. Varying stake, presumably increasing on the percieved
value (upwards no doubt) seems more like common sense rather than clever.
Correct but the cleverness isn't the concept it's the ability to accurately quantify the value.
I hope to end up in profit this year, maybe by going over the 3 year results will help me increase the value bets and decrease the non-valuers.
Firstly I'm thinking of reducing stakes on maiden races and Grp 1s
These results are to a £10 lay stake.
Firstly I'm thinking of reducing stakes on maiden races and Grp 1s
These results are to a £10 lay stake.
| 2009 Profit | 3295 |
| 2010 Profit | 639 |
| 2011 Profit | 6722 |
| 3 yr Profit | 10656 |
| 2012 Loss | -1172 |
| Total Profit | 9484 |
catflmasppo Joined: 12 Sep 10
Replies: 375 13 Oct 12 16:30
Correct but the cleverness isn't the concept it's the ability to accurately quantify the value.
...but we are not talking about the ability of quantifying value,we are talking about
''clever staking'' (at least I am)!
Replies: 375 13 Oct 12 16:30
Correct but the cleverness isn't the concept it's the ability to accurately quantify the value.
...but we are not talking about the ability of quantifying value,we are talking about
''clever staking'' (at least I am)!
kenilworth it has come to my attention after reading a good amount of your posts, you are indeed, a mug.
To make it simple, the problem with gambling is that there is more value in
the high odds range, but at the same time there are more risk of losing one's
capital.
the high odds range, but at the same time there are more risk of losing one's
capital.
CrowsEye, my BF account suggests otherwise, but
nevertheless I noticed from your only other post on this
thread, you failed to even make a choice from two picks
in the the opening post, although you did acknowledge
'good' staking is helpful, if only to keep your bank
going longer. Thanks for that.
nevertheless I noticed from your only other post on this
thread, you failed to even make a choice from two picks
in the the opening post, although you did acknowledge
'good' staking is helpful, if only to keep your bank
going longer. Thanks for that.
To make it simple, the problem with gambling is that there is more value in
the high odds range, but at the same time there are more risk of losing one's
capital.
CORRECT - many a time a 'value ' pick will contract from 10s to 8s . ( 2 full points )
If your bag is 11-10 shots and they move to evs ( bigger % move than 10s to 8s ) that is only 1/10 of a point.
So you need to get 20 of them correct just to gain your overall 2 points .
the high odds range, but at the same time there are more risk of losing one's
capital.
CORRECT - many a time a 'value ' pick will contract from 10s to 8s . ( 2 full points )
If your bag is 11-10 shots and they move to evs ( bigger % move than 10s to 8s ) that is only 1/10 of a point.
So you need to get 20 of them correct just to gain your overall 2 points .
That's not correct Zealot, your maths and your theory is wrong. Haven't got much time at the mo but basically 10% value is the same at any odds range, will explain later if necessary. Chatlame's point is correct in that it's easier to match value at higher prices, IMO.
Here's the chart with a simple graduated betting stake (ie don't bother with the small fry) using the previous 3 years data (2009-12) then checking if history repeats.
I've left out infrequent race types...
All to a £10 stake. You can try your own graduated staking system.
I've left out infrequent race types...
| Type | Race | 2009-11 | 2012 | 1000+ | 100+ |
| Flat | Nursery | -610 | 247 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Claim Stks | -453 | -186 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Sell Stks | -141 | 260 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Stks | -114 | -267 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Cond Stks | -108 | 406 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Grp2 | 24 | -170 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Grp3 | 73 | -49 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Mdn Stks | 95 | -394 | 0 | 0 |
| Flat | Nov Stks | 163 | 33 | 0 | 33 |
| Flat | Class Stks | 338 | 129 | 0 | 129 |
| Flat | Listed | 924 | -413 | 0 | -413 |
| Flat | Grp1 | 1176 | -95 | -95 | -95 |
| Flat | Hcap | 5718 | 318 | 318 | 318 |
| Flat | P/L | 7084 | -181 | 223 | -28 |
| Jmp | Nov Hrd | -451 | -99 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Nov Chs | -353 | -185 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Beg Chs | -299 | -11 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Hunt Chs | -195 | -27 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Grd1-2 Chs | -177 | -13 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Mdn Chs | -153 | 29 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Grad Chs | -120 | -41 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Grd1-2 Hrd | -79 | -116 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | NHF | -77 | 77 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | XC Chs | -18 | -69 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Hrd | -16 | -35 | 0 | 0 |
| Jmp | Chs | 119 | -31 | 0 | -31 |
| Jmp | Mdn Hrd | 198 | -113 | 0 | -113 |
| Jmp | Hcap Chs | 1471 | 461 | 461 | 461 |
| Jmp | Hcap Hrd | 3471 | -129 | -129 | -129 |
| Jmp | P/L | 3319 | -301 | 332 | 188 |
All to a £10 stake. You can try your own graduated staking system.
value is most important.
while a bad staking plan can kill your return and destroy your bank - even if you are picking value bets.
*no* staking plan will save you in the long run if you are not selecting value bets.
while a bad staking plan can kill your return and destroy your bank - even if you are picking value bets.
*no* staking plan will save you in the long run if you are not selecting value bets.
''a bad staking plan''indeed.
I've seen staking plans described as 'clever', 'good', 'sensible'
and now plain 'bad'. I've asked for details of these plans but
those who describe them as such, ignore my simple requests. Can
someone help with examples please, ?
I've seen staking plans described as 'clever', 'good', 'sensible'
and now plain 'bad'. I've asked for details of these plans but
those who describe them as such, ignore my simple requests. Can
someone help with examples please, ?
Oct 22, 2012 -- 4:47AM, kenilworth wrote:''a bad staking plan''indeed.I've seen staking plans described as 'clever', 'good', 'sensible'and now plain 'bad'. I've asked for details of these plans but those who describe them as such, ignore my simple requests. Can someone help with examples please, ?
an example for cleaver staking plan can be a staking plan which considers the risk and value of a bet-. an example for sensible staking plan can be a a small percentage of bank level staking and a bad staking can be a martingale.
i just read that someone previously has explained these examples. kenilworth, are you still uncomfortable with grading staking plans from good to bad
I was really questioning the use of the adjectives clever, good, sensible etc
to describe certain staking, without explaining why. I have studied staking plans and am of
the opinion that all staking plans, especially progressive plans where the stake increases
after losers, decreasing after winners, in reality guaranteeing the stake on winners is higher
than those on losers, sometimes called 'chasing', the problem of course, being the losing run,
as is the case with most staking plan.
colonel, you mention an example for clever staking as one which considers the risk and value of
a bet,...with respect, could you explain how it can do that ?
to describe certain staking, without explaining why. I have studied staking plans and am of
the opinion that all staking plans, especially progressive plans where the stake increases
after losers, decreasing after winners, in reality guaranteeing the stake on winners is higher
than those on losers, sometimes called 'chasing', the problem of course, being the losing run,
as is the case with most staking plan.
colonel, you mention an example for clever staking as one which considers the risk and value of
a bet,...with respect, could you explain how it can do that ?
well, the sisk of a bet is the chance of losing a bet which is the true probability of an outcome against ur bet and the value of a bet is the differences between the market inferred probability and the true probality of an outcome.
so for eg consider two cases, 1. the market assumes the probality of an outcome to be 20% while the true probality is 30% 2. market assumes 50% chance of an outcome while u know it is 60%. in both cases u have a value of 10%. but while backing these outcomes( which u have to do in these cases), the first one is more risky than the second while the reward in the long run is the same for both. if u are clever, ur staking shouldnt be the same. u should stake more for the second example than u would do for the first.
so in short it is a case of balancing the short term risk of losing ur bank vs the long term profit of ur bet.
so for eg consider two cases, 1. the market assumes the probality of an outcome to be 20% while the true probality is 30% 2. market assumes 50% chance of an outcome while u know it is 60%. in both cases u have a value of 10%. but while backing these outcomes( which u have to do in these cases), the first one is more risky than the second while the reward in the long run is the same for both. if u are clever, ur staking shouldnt be the same. u should stake more for the second example than u would do for the first.
so in short it is a case of balancing the short term risk of losing ur bank vs the long term profit of ur bet.
especially progressive plans where the stake increases
after losers, decreasing after winners, in reality guaranteeing the stake on winners is higher
than those on losers, sometimes called 'chasing', the problem of course, being the losing run,
as is the case with most staking plan.
all of these are mug staking plans, avoid them
after losers, decreasing after winners, in reality guaranteeing the stake on winners is higher
than those on losers, sometimes called 'chasing', the problem of course, being the losing run,
as is the case with most staking plan.
all of these are mug staking plans, avoid them
colonel, in your examples the 30% and 20% represent (in BF prices) 3.33
and 5.0 respectively, and in the 2nd example 50% and 60%, again (in BF prices)
represent 2.0 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly the 5.0 and the 2.0 represent the
value and in those cases my stakes would 50 pts at 2.0, and 20 pts at 5.0,
either bet, if successful, returning 100 pts. I don't see anything clever about
doing that, common sense IMO. Regards risk, the bigger the price(s) the bigger
the risk, but in the ideal world both approaches, and returns are the same.
and 5.0 respectively, and in the 2nd example 50% and 60%, again (in BF prices)
represent 2.0 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly the 5.0 and the 2.0 represent the
value and in those cases my stakes would 50 pts at 2.0, and 20 pts at 5.0,
either bet, if successful, returning 100 pts. I don't see anything clever about
doing that, common sense IMO. Regards risk, the bigger the price(s) the bigger
the risk, but in the ideal world both approaches, and returns are the same.
kenilworth the more you type the more you are firmly in the mug camp.
Regards risk, the bigger the price(s) the bigger
the risk, but in the ideal world both approaches, and returns are the same.
kenilworth, we dont live in an ideal world
, do we? we live in a "real" world where resources are finite. and that is why we need a staking plan, to balance the risk and reward in a resource constrained world. in an ideal world it may be conceivable to assume one to survive .
colonel, in your examples the 30% and 20% represent (in BF prices) 3.33
and 5.0 respectively, and in the 2nd example 50% and 60%, again (in BF prices)
represent 2.0 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly the 5.0 and the 2.0 represent the
value and in those cases my stakes would 50 pts at 2.0, and 20 pts at 5.0,
either bet, if successful, returning 100 pts. I don't see anything clever about
doing that, common sense IMO.
well, this is not the end of the story.many of the most complex things in the world at the basic level are simple issues, they only become complex when they are in a real life scenario. first of all finding the true probality of a sport outcome which is used to quantify risk and value is difficult to say the least, hence why the market makes mistake and why value arises. second getting the optimal combination of risk factor and value factor in ur staking plan is not as easy as it seems. a person called kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion) for instance has came up with one such plan which is claimed(i didn't understand the proof) to be the optimal provided that u have the true probality quantified.
the risk, but in the ideal world both approaches, and returns are the same.
kenilworth, we dont live in an ideal world
, do we? we live in a "real" world where resources are finite. and that is why we need a staking plan, to balance the risk and reward in a resource constrained world. in an ideal world it may be conceivable to assume one to survive .colonel, in your examples the 30% and 20% represent (in BF prices) 3.33
and 5.0 respectively, and in the 2nd example 50% and 60%, again (in BF prices)
represent 2.0 and 1.66 respectively. Clearly the 5.0 and the 2.0 represent the
value and in those cases my stakes would 50 pts at 2.0, and 20 pts at 5.0,
either bet, if successful, returning 100 pts. I don't see anything clever about
doing that, common sense IMO.
well, this is not the end of the story.many of the most complex things in the world at the basic level are simple issues, they only become complex when they are in a real life scenario. first of all finding the true probality of a sport outcome which is used to quantify risk and value is difficult to say the least, hence why the market makes mistake and why value arises. second getting the optimal combination of risk factor and value factor in ur staking plan is not as easy as it seems. a person called kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion) for instance has came up with one such plan which is claimed(i didn't understand the proof) to be the optimal provided that u have the true probality quantified.
in an ideal world it may be conceivable to assume one to survive .ignore this part
CrowsEye, You remind me of someone who, when
he enters an empty room, the room remains
empty. You make no contribution, so go away
you silly boy, you offer nothing.
he enters an empty room, the room remains
empty. You make no contribution, so go away
you silly boy, you offer nothing.
colonel, I only asked if someone, (not you) to
define the expression clever staking but we
appear to have deviated to bunker like survival talk!
I have no problem with staking, betting as I feel, with
lot's of experience behind me. The stronger I feel about
the opportunities that arrive, the stronger I bet. I'm
very selective so don't bet that often nowadays, as my
discipline is 100%, especially on tv football. I'll just
have to stay curious about 'clever staking' GL.
define the expression clever staking but we
appear to have deviated to bunker like survival talk!
I have no problem with staking, betting as I feel, with
lot's of experience behind me. The stronger I feel about
the opportunities that arrive, the stronger I bet. I'm
very selective so don't bet that often nowadays, as my
discipline is 100%, especially on tv football. I'll just
have to stay curious about 'clever staking' GL.
Tomorrow FC Nordsjaelland v Juventus...I have taken Juve -1 @ 1.53 with Paddi power. This is the highest price on offer with any bookie so that must be value no?
I think another concept is more interesting;
required staking. If one can find 20 good
bets per month and need to earn £2000, and
has a margin of 10%, then one has to bet
£1000 per bet. If all bets are odds 2.00,
one need a smaller bank than if all odds are
200.00.
required staking. If one can find 20 good
bets per month and need to earn £2000, and
has a margin of 10%, then one has to bet
£1000 per bet. If all bets are odds 2.00,
one need a smaller bank than if all odds are
200.00.
The bank would be the same size, but the bets would be £10 @ 200 rather than £1000 @ 2.0
DCM, the bookmaker with the best price, isn't necessarily
offering good value, just the biggest price.
BTW, stay away from those handicap bets.
offering good value, just the biggest price.
BTW, stay away from those handicap bets.
value is most important.
while a bad staking plan can kill your return and destroy your bank - even if you are picking value bets.
*no* staking plan will save you in the long run if you are not selecting value bets.
This is a more comprehensive version of exactly what I said and it's the right answer.
/thread
while a bad staking plan can kill your return and destroy your bank - even if you are picking value bets.
*no* staking plan will save you in the long run if you are not selecting value bets.
This is a more comprehensive version of exactly what I said and it's the right answer.
/thread
Put the uniform and helmet on, on every occation
and flip burgers until the goal is reached,
without risking the bank.
and flip burgers until the goal is reached,
without risking the bank.
Zealot: many a time a 'value ' pick will contract from 10s to 8s . ( 2 full points )
If your bag is 11-10 shots and they move to evs ( bigger % move than 10s to 8s ) that is only 1/10 of a point.
So you need to get 20 of them correct just to gain your overall 2 points
Ok, will explain, still on a dodgy mobile connection at the mo so might get booted though...
2.1 to evens is not a bigger move than 10's to 8's, your maths is wrong, that's the easy part out of the way :)
The theory is wrong because if for example you're looking for 10% value, then backing 8.0 shots at 8.8 or 2.0 shots at 2.2 will give you the same result in terms of gross profit on turnover, but your net profit will be more the lower the odds range, so in the above example net POT is more when betting at 2.2 (30% comm paid @ 5% @ 10% value) than 8.8 (36.25% comm paid @ 5% @ 10% value). Clear as mud? :) (comm charged @ 5% when betting 100.0 shots at 10% value is 54.5%).
If your bag is 11-10 shots and they move to evs ( bigger % move than 10s to 8s ) that is only 1/10 of a point.
So you need to get 20 of them correct just to gain your overall 2 points
Ok, will explain, still on a dodgy mobile connection at the mo so might get booted though...
2.1 to evens is not a bigger move than 10's to 8's, your maths is wrong, that's the easy part out of the way :)
The theory is wrong because if for example you're looking for 10% value, then backing 8.0 shots at 8.8 or 2.0 shots at 2.2 will give you the same result in terms of gross profit on turnover, but your net profit will be more the lower the odds range, so in the above example net POT is more when betting at 2.2 (30% comm paid @ 5% @ 10% value) than 8.8 (36.25% comm paid @ 5% @ 10% value). Clear as mud? :) (comm charged @ 5% when betting 100.0 shots at 10% value is 54.5%).
10% value on 8.0 and 2.0 is 8.7 and 2.1 respectively,
is it not ?
is it not ?
No it's not, can't stop now will explain later if necessary.
10/1 = 9.09%
8/1 = 11.11%
% shift = 11.11-9.09 = 2.02%
evs = 50%
2.1 = 47.61%
% shift = 50-47.61 = 2.39%
2.1 > evens is a bigger shift in price than 10s to 8s
8/1 = 11.11%
% shift = 11.11-9.09 = 2.02%
evs = 50%
2.1 = 47.61%
% shift = 50-47.61 = 2.39%
2.1 > evens is a bigger shift in price than 10s to 8s
to calculate value you divide, not subtract. Trev knows his stuff.
No worries Zealot, I'm surprised that Kenilworth doesn't know his value percentages though...
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539