General Betting
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 187 comments are related to the topic:
Does a football betting system that works exist?
Does a football betting system that works exist?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 187
|
By:
bit of a mare on the 22nd......
unfortunately i went away until today and didn't post any more lays on here. looking at sun 23rd and boxing day historical results, could've made 6-9 points back depending on the odds drift on a possible losing lay, unfortunately can't include that on here.... |
|
By:
Unlucky. I don't know how big a sample you need at these prices, I'm sure there was a formula posted up here once to determine sample sizes for testing. My guess would be several thousand as a bare minimum. And obviously as it's determined by bets drifting in and out of range being placed automatically, it's not something you can really paper trade without spending ages on site checking markets.
|
|
By:
Fair play to you ticktocktimmy for posting up the losers. Would have been easy to claim that your system didn't take the bets from the 22nd.
As inner city sumo has commented, you will need a much larger sample of bets to assess whether you have something that is long term profitable and I would once again question the reliability of your or any method that identifies so many selections over so many different markets. This thread should be required reading for "systems" in general, the market-makers on Betfair are not charities putting up money in thousands of different markets at prices advantageous to the casual punter, you are betting against very significant resources and any inefficiency will be very quickly eroded (at best you will lose just to the commission rate). So the answer to the thread question; "Does a football betting system that works exist?" is a resounding "definitely not" or not one that you are going to find on a betting forum or in the public domain. Of course you can always try the shysters selling paid for tips, systems or trading strategy videos, because if you did have a profitable edge over the markets the first thing in the universe you'd do would be to share it with everyone ;-). Gl all. |
|
By:
at this point i have been live for 170 bets, 146 winners (s/r 85.9%) from 3 Nov till now. 30.9pts from 52 matches in Nov, 13.1pts from 118 matches in Dec including the 22nd debacle...
the biggest issue with a system (apart from the obvious that it has to be successful) is that you have be across ALL the matches. if i had missed the 22nd and a couple of other losing days out due to pure luck, then the results would be brilliant, but misleading. likewise, if several successful days are missed out then the system looks poor instead of a possible success. i totally agree about the point concerning betting against significant resources, however if they are basing their odds using a different methodology to what i am using, then it is hard to compare. am i right? probably not,but who knows? the odds are against me and my selections over the long term. are my live results the outliers in a poor system, or an indication that i am on the right path? only time and many more selections will tell. |
|
By:
Good luck to you. It's nice to see good old fashioned systematic testing of a hypothesis. You've got a nice cushion from Nov and Dec to at the very least keep on testing with to see how it goes over a bigger sample. The fact that you're automated is obviously a plus too as you always get your bets down and get the full picture relative to your selections.
|
|
By:
Basically the SPs are so accurate, trying to beat them long term is like chucking an object in the air at different points in the garden thinking gravity will affect it differently and it wont come back down to earth. There was a graph showing the correlation between outcomes and prediction using betfair SPs of thousands of games and the accuracy is frighteningly good. It doesn't matter what system you have or " dedication", if the odds on a game are accurate and you are trying to make profit, you're doomed to failure long term and will always revert back to baseline of no profit.
The only way to succeed in profiting long term is to find a disparity between odds offered and what they should be. If the betfair SPs are proven to be close to 100% accurate, you are defying the laws of mathematics by hoping to make any gains... it'd be like rolling dice expecting the 6 to show up more than 111 times in 666 throws purely because of a "system". I've been on this site for 15 years and reading this forum for that time and after hundreds or thousands of threads, not one has made continual profit over sufficient bets to indicate an edge. If a team starts at evens and it's proven with spreadsheets looking at how betfair SPs arise and their accuracy over tens of thousands of games to have a 50% of winning, how can any system beat odds which truly reflect the outcome? |
|
By:
GOOD POINT WOLFEE
|
|
By:
Interesting youtube vid about randomness and psychology in relation to system stats and their sequences
https://youtu.be/Ja4oJNTOsFo I think one of the hardest things of following a "system" is battling through a losing sequence even if you believe the long term, also making the "system bet" when your brain is using other data and telling you that the outcome is unlikely to happen |
|
By:
back the team on the top of the table every week to win."now remember i said the team at the top,i did not mention a team,if a team at the top lose a few games they will not be on top too long.
 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
|
By:
i still use the lay the draw system with decent results and a 2 goal second half system as well, have been for a year now
|
|
By:
in response to wolfe and trying to beat the accuracy of the sp's.
it is difficult to try and find a discrepancy in your favour from the odds compilers because of the resources they have available. however, if you gauge matches on different criteria than the usual recent form, h2h, team selection etc., then you have more opportunity to beat the odds. i was using a selection method so far away from the norm that it was like comparing oranges to apples. there are other ways to look at match selection, it is just trying to sort the wheat from the chaffe that is difficult. nonsensical stats like, team A are terrible on monday nights are ridiculous, but lull people into factoring these details in. |
|
By:
Isn't compound interest on an 'all-in every bet bank' at odds of 1.02 to 1.08 [normally 1.05 or 1.06 for me] something you guys ever consider?
A initial bet of say £20 will get you to £1K in just 100 bets at odds of 1.04 (not allowing for commission). OK, your last bet is about £980 to win just another £40 but you have to be of the mind that you are only risking your initial £20 and not all that profit you have already made. Of course you can stop a sequence at any time to take a profit and then start again with some of that profit. The main point is that, to reduce statistical likelihood of you hitting a loser, you should use as big an initial bank as you can afford to risk. That way it takes many less bets to reach your target. For example, starting with a £400 bank and going all-in at 1.04 would then take you just 25 bets to reach £1K, but of course your personal loss of £400 should it go wrong is a lot more than the £20 of the slower sequence. Mad. |
|
By:
There are dozens of markets all over the exchange (a lot of the time these are in-running) where someone is prepared to to let you have odds of around 1.04 to 1.07 when the true odds are probably lower but they see their risk v reward as tempting enough to match your bets.
You need to be totally disciplined in your approach and have it in your head that you are only ever really risking your initial bank, otherwise you wont get very far. |
|
By:
Mathematically, if you have 100 bets at 1.04 four of them will lose. Even if the true odds are 1.02 two of them will lose
QED |
|
By:
Hence the reason to use larger stakes to reach the goal in a lesser number of bets...
|
|
By:
4 in 100, or 1 in 25 = same difference
|
|
By:
But you're betting on 1.04 shots that SHOULD be 1.02 shots...that is totally different
|
|
By:
So, purely statistically, wherever those 2 winners occur that should be 1.02 (but you are getting 1.04 for them) in your 100 bets you must get a minimum of 2 x 25 winning sequences up. Therefore, totally based on the maths, you would lose two lots of 400 but would win 2 lots of 1000.
Of course nothing is that simple because you could get half a dozen losers in your first 100 bets and lose several banks...then you're struggling. But you may go the next 200 to 300 with no losers at all - then you're laughing. Purely on the maths it works, so long as you are reading the market correctly and getting over the odds for you bet (i.e. value) and there are plenty of markets that trade between 1.04 and about 1.08 that should be trading a lot shorter, especially in running. What one punter sees as a value bet is what another punter sees a value lay. That is of course the essence of betting! Good luck in whatever you bet. |
|
By:
madhhatter
Purely on the maths it works, so long as you are reading the market correctly and getting over the odds for you bet (i.e. value) and there are plenty of markets that trade between 1.04 and about 1.08 that should be trading a lot shorter, especially in running. How do you determine whether a short odds in-running bet is value or not? (I'm discounting fast pics) |
|
By:
I'm not talking horse-racing.
I'm just an everyday punter on the horses (not very good!) and never bet in running on them, but I have enjoyed it all my life as a hobby. I'm talking football matches mostly, occasionally cricket. And it's part stats and partly taking an impartial view, which is easier when you don't support a premiership team so dont care who wins. I think people's judgement on football matches is optimistically clouded by their support of a team and them wanting their team/hoping their team will do better than is truly likely. As a LTFC supporter I have learned to be pessimistic and apart from the last two seasons it has been mostly justified during the 52 years I have been watching them!  Where I said 'especially in running' is misleading...sorry....I should have said 'sometimes in running'. Most of my bets are struck before kick-off but I think in running is just as viable for the markets I work in. And no, I'm not telling you them, you need to work it out for yourself.  |
|
By:
I think any edge lies in the fact that someone somewhere is usually willing to risk five to ten quid to try to win a hundred.
I am happy to risk a hundred to try to win five or six quid if I truly think I should only be offered a win of two or three quid. With singles betting on a percentage of a rolling bank you will need a much higher strike rate than for doing the compound interest 'all-in' type of staking I prefer. If you aim for shortish sequences to a highish starting stake and stop your initial sequences fairly early (thus reducing the chance of the inevitable loser occuring before you have banked some cash) you can then reinvest a part of those winnings into further sequences, therefore it doesn't do your head in to the same extent!  |
|
By:
lay
Leicester Brighton Wolves Frieburg Eintracht Frankfurt Fortuna Dusseldorf Werder Bremen Levante Betis Vallodild Parma Verona |
|
By:
|
|
By:
lay
Leicester +0.95 Brighton -2.3 Wolves -1.2 Frieburg +0.47 (due to high odds stake 0.5pt) Eintracht Frankfurt +0.95 Fortuna Dusseldorf +0.95 Werder Bremen +0.95 Levante -3.2 Betis +0.95 Vallodolid +0.47 (due to high odds stake 0.5pt) Parma 0.95 Verona -1.1 Total -1.16 As always, as soon as you put something in writing on here, the results go against you. |
|
By:
Thank you for kind words wolf3011. I can see from the short time you have been on Betfair and the amount of topic/replies you have written that you have spread your particular brand of joy and insight in many places.
it isn't chucking darts at a board, it's a ratings theory i have been playing with for a long time, but finally had the time to play with in lockdown. |
|
By:
lay
Osasuna Liverpool Sheff Utd Back Chelsea |
|
By:
lay
Osasuna Sheff Utd Back Chelsea Liverpool removed, added on error. Was looking at asian hcap for that one. Apologies |
|
By:
Just to show i'm not using darts, an example of bet selection
 |
|
By:
ticktocktimmy,
How do you arrive at the 1.73 price for Valencia? |
|
By:
@politicspunter
i have devised my own ratings system that looks at teams performances against teams that are similarly classified. Valencia has done well at home against teams rated the same, only losing on 4 occasions, twice against the same team. Osasuna have only won twice on the road against teams with the same rating as Valencia, hence my ratings throw up 1.73 for the home team and 9.50 for the away. The table doesn't necessarily predict the result, just that fixtures just as this where i deduce a discrepancy in the odds will make a profit over time. |
|
By:
Thank you.
|
|
By:
lay
Osasuna +0.95 Sheff Utd +0.95 Back Chelsea +0.48 3/3 +2.38 11/15 73.3% +1.22 |
|
By:
Monday
lay Sevilla Granada Bologna |
|
By:
Good luck with your system basing previous home advantage now in empty stadiums... makes perfect sense
|
|
By:
@wolf3011
you are correct. we should base predictions on a couple of weeks of matches rather than the thousands and thousands and thousands of matches that have gone on before... at first glance at post lockdown/empty stadiums fixtures it could be hypothesized that the home bias has shifted. however, you could find similar figures at various times in previous groups of matches and people don't leap onto it saying there is a shift in the bias. has anyone carried out a study of the expected results of the matches post lockdown to see if more away wins were forecast? |
|
By:
Monday
lay Sevilla +0.95 Granada +0.95 Bologna +0.95 3/3 +2.85 14/18 77.8% 4.07pts |
|
By:
Tues
Lay Udinese Verona Levante (0.5 pt) Getafe Ath Bilbao (0.5 pt) |
|
By:
Tues
Lay Udinese 0.95 Verona 0.95 Levante (0.5 pt) 0.48 Getafe 0.95 Ath Bilbao (0.5 pt) 0.48 5/5 3.81pts 19/23 82.6% 7.88pts |
|
By:
Weds
Lay Aston V Everton Osasuna Atalanta |
|
By:
No one is saying base predictions on a couple of weeks but the fact you are using a template of previous matches with crowds to determine betting is laughable with most of the home advantage gone... similar trends with full stadiums implying home advantage isnt there is irrelevant. They all revert to a mean of home advantage being massively advantageous .. trying to use the same betting system now with empty crowds is illogical.
It would also be much more credible if you posted the odds that you are laying |