Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
G Hall
18 Jan 18 15:01
Joined:
Date Joined: 26 Feb 06
| Topic/replies: 13,938 | Blogger: G Hall's blog
Is it realistic , I have been on here for more years than I care to remember. I have been full time for a while, and part time and during all that time have had a lot of fluctuations mostly caused when I wasn't taking betting seriously.

I can retire next year, and 20K per annum on top of a pension would be satisfactory for me. I have much experience of betting and have a lot of various successful strategies. The big bug bear is of cause discipline or rather the lack of at certain times.

I recently read a book called Trading in the Zone which I too easily identified with, I thought he wrote the book about me lol.

I would appreciate any feedback and also details of when premium charge kicks in.TIA.
Pause Switch to Standard View 20K a year profit on betfair.
Show More
Loading...
Report G Hall January 20, 2018 7:59 PM GMT
I will respond charlie when I have absorbed them and thought it through. It is not easy to get it right and I have a lot of thoughts of my own. There is a lot of good stuff above.

I will let this month pass and come back with a better response. I also appreciate your assistance with Trading in the Zone a couple of weeks back.
Report nathanrh January 21, 2018 5:23 AM GMT
A 5% edge after commission on BF would frankly be a ticket to millions and even then there would still be the possibility of going broke during the journey (check out Steve's Daily25 blog if you want to see what this looks like in practice). Any advantage betting at those volumes is unlikely to be anywhere near that and variance will play a huge part, you sure as hell won't be using Betfair either, you'll be wanting to take Pinnacle or some other sharp books early prices to get the necessary action.

Lack of discipline is essentially lack of any kind of strategy or to that end any edge. Chimpanzees with darts can pick out winners just as well as anyone with 'lack of discipline' can, your strategy has either a positive expectation or it doesn't, lack of discipline just implies that you overstake, chase losses etc.

There are several good books out there, Buchdahl springs to mind, titles however like 'trading in the zone' I'm afraid don't inspire much confidence, if only we could get in the 'zone' all of our losing bets would suddenly become winners.....save your money, learn the maths, there isn't a shortcut.

Just my 2c.
Report lewisham ranger January 21, 2018 10:53 AM GMT
i wouldn't set a target. what happens if you are 13k down with a month to go? you'll go on tilt. betting is so up and down that it can't be predicted.
Report pxb January 21, 2018 8:48 PM GMT
You might find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jyokhjUCyk

I'll summarize it for you.

There are 2 types who can make money gambling. Those who have very high levels of knowledge/skill in particular areas like horses. Those who are very good at assessing and managing risk.

I still make money on bf, with low levels of risk, but nothing like 20K pa.
Report PeteTheBloke February 1, 2018 7:44 PM GMT
The only place where success comes before work is the dictionary. If you can earn above minimum
wage for your hours on here, you'll do well. A job in B+Q might be more rewarding in financial
and non-financial ways.
Report Man'O War February 3, 2018 10:53 PM GMT
I have been here for quite some time now and have been losing every year Sad
Report PeteTheBloke February 4, 2018 2:57 PM GMT
Sorry to hear that. I hope it's only money you can afford.
Report mecca February 20, 2018 11:34 PM GMT
Pardon me for being curious, or nosey, GH. But what would you do if you had a cracking couple of weeks, threw all caution to the wind and won yourself £20k..?

Would you see it as you've "got your year in" and not gamble for the next 11 months or would you keep going to build your bank up?

With your 20k winnings and your pension, you say that this would be satisfactory for you. So would you just stop, and start again 11 or 12 months later?
Report aye robot February 21, 2018 12:18 PM GMT
If you made £15k last year then you've a realistic chance of making £20k this year, but if you lost last year you'll probably lose this year too. If you're not a lifetime winner then forget 20k and just try to make more than zero - or better yet forget about making a profit, bet for fun and do something else for money.

If you're not certain whether you're a lifetime winner or not then you're not. If you were you would know.

Here's a truth that many would rather not acknowledge: It's NOT about discipline. People like to blame discipline for their losses because it's something they feel they could change but if you're getting value bets the issue just doesn't arise. Discipline is a problem for LOSING gamblers - not winning ones. Nobody 'chases' wins. You don't lose because of indiscipline, you lose because you didn't get value, then you make it worse by indiscipline. If your records are showing profits then losses are a bit annoying but they don't cause silly behaviour.

Only a vanishingly small minority of players ever make returns similar to working and they all have specialist skills, knowledge or access. Sticking at it isn't enough, going full time isn't enough and having a large bank just means losing more. If you can't make a profit in your spare time with a little bit of money then you're not going to make it. If you can - that's great, now build up slowly and don't imagine that you can scale your winnings just by scaling your bank - it doesn't work like that.
Report TheBaron February 21, 2018 6:49 PM GMT
You don't lose because of indiscipline, you lose because you didn't get value,

Just because you get value doesn't mean you will win in the short term.  Short term losses can lead to indiscipline and overstaking.
Report Gin February 22, 2018 8:35 AM GMT
aye robot 21 Feb 18 12:18 Joined: 17 Jan 08 | Topic/replies: 611 | Blogger: aye robot's blog

You don't lose because of indiscipline, you lose because you didn't get value, then you make it worse by indiscipline. If your records are showing profits then losses are a bit annoying but they don't cause silly behaviour.





I disagree with this aye - I reckon you could give ten people a guaranteed winning system and half of them would still mess it up through indiscipline - particularly if it was a volatile system.
Report Gin February 22, 2018 8:37 AM GMT
Which I guess is the same thing as the Baron is saying! Laugh
Report aye robot February 23, 2018 3:13 PM GMT
Just because you get value doesn't mean you will win in the short term.....

This is a fair point, let me amend my statement a little:
Gamblers VERY RARELY lose because of indiscipline, they lose because you didn't get value, then they make it worse by indiscipline.

My underlying point is the same - people tell themselves all kinds of stories about how they're not winning because of something that they could change, it's part of how they justify keeping going. The truth is that they're just not cut out for it in the same way that I could never drive an articulated truck - I just don't have the spacial awareness.

Kidding yourself that you could have made it as a racing driver/astronaut/footballer is fun and harmless, but those fantasies don't risk leading you into an addictive spiral that could ruin your life. Pretending that with a bit more focus you could be a professional gambler can do.

I've seen the haunted stare of problem gamblers as yet another bet goes wrong and they slide a little further into the pit. It's awful. I'm here to take people's money but I don't want their last penny. Anyone who isn't already a winner is best advised to forget about making a living from gambling and play for fun with a small portion of the money that they have to spare.
Report Charlie February 23, 2018 9:56 PM GMT
Interesting stuff. Would someone like to define indiscipline for me please (not talking about the obvious chasing losses)?
Report TameTheTiger February 25, 2018 12:32 PM GMT
I just rolled a dice 28 times. True odds for each number is 5/1. Paying out at 4/1 each of 6 produced these results.

1 -8
2 +2
3 +7
4 -13
5 -3
6 -13

so, backing 1,2 and 3 each roll, produced a 1 point profit from 84 single bets,despite the odds paid out at being 20% shorter than true value.
So even having a gold mine (laying 20% under true value) is no guarantee to success after 84 bets.
Report aye robot February 25, 2018 1:54 PM GMT
5/1 paying at 4/1 is decimal 6 paying at 5.

Decimal 6 paying at 5 is 3.3% edge and returns about 4% of your liability on average. That's nearly not enough to guarantee a profit over 84 bets.

Strictly your profit is never guaranteed but the probability of a  positive return tends towards 1 (or 100% if you prefer).
Report aye robot February 25, 2018 1:57 PM GMT
.....tends towards 1 (or 100% if you prefer) as the length of the series of results increases.
Report Ghetto Joe February 25, 2018 2:24 PM GMT
I don't think it's particularly hard to make £20K on Betfair but it generally requires more effort than  people are willing to put in. Most people who've been on here a while will probably have spotted plenty of ways they can turn a profit   but those 'edges' are usually too infrequent or considered too small they just don't bother taking advantage of them. I think the real question asked in all these type of posts is can I make £20K pa with little effort and the answer is no.
Report aye robot February 25, 2018 3:03 PM GMT
To be fair Joe it is pretty difficult - take TTT's dice throw example above, that returns 4% before comm, 3.5% after comm at 3%. To get to the OP's 20k he'd have to match about £565,000. That's an awful lot of sensible £10 liability bets - if he found one for every UK and Irish horse race it'd take him 4 years.
Report aye robot February 25, 2018 3:04 PM GMT
....£565,000 would be his matched liability, not backers stakes.
Report ericster February 25, 2018 3:08 PM GMT
Well,
I'm just south of retirement age and finally, I think, I'm making inroads into that great bug bear that G.Hall mentioned in his OP.
Have i got a good/worthwhile/ultimately profitable strategy?
Good question and good luck GH.
The dream lives on, for now.
Report TheBaron February 26, 2018 4:15 PM GMT
Most people who've been on here a while will probably have spotted plenty of ways they can turn a profit

Oh really!
Report ericster February 28, 2018 2:28 PM GMT
Lol Baron.

I shall keep trying for now and what the hell, I'm just another two-quidder. What harm can it do?
Report aye robot February 28, 2018 5:17 PM GMT
what the hell, I'm just another two-quidder. What harm can it do?

None at all if that's the case. Good luck, I hope you succeed.
Report ericster February 28, 2018 7:22 PM GMT

Feb 28, 2018 -- 6:17PM, aye robot wrote:


what the hell, I'm just another two-quidder. What harm can it do?None at all if that's the case. Good luck, I hope you succeed.


Thanx robot.
Don't we all mate, don't we all.

Report abetfairtrader March 2, 2018 8:12 PM GMT
I'll like to suggest here my page, www.abetfairtrader.com where I'll show my evolution from just 200€. I'll share my strategies and my ideas.
Report TameTheTiger March 3, 2018 11:53 AM GMT
aye robot

The backer in my example is betting into a 120% market.He can expect a 20% loss on his stakes.Doesnt that make my edge as the layer in the example 20% ?
Report aye robot March 3, 2018 4:55 PM GMT
True odds 6 is 0.166 probability (1/6).
A price of 5 implies 0.2 probability, the difference is 0.033 - or 3.3% - that's your edge on a single bet.
On all 6 selections that's your 120% layers book, i.e there is 20% total edge available in the market - but your bet is only 1 selection.

The backer's bet has an expected value of -20%. He wins £0.8 for every pound he risks. However - to get his 20p the layer has to risk £5, so his expected value is just 4%.

If the layer got more than one selection his expected value would improve because he'd be risking the same money for a better outcome and if he layed all outcomes he'd get the full 20% edge and 20% expected value.
Report aye robot March 3, 2018 5:25 PM GMT
Actually I got that wrong - sorry. The layers EV is 5% - he risks £4 a throw for his 20p.
Report aye robot March 3, 2018 5:40 PM GMT
w.t.f now I'm confusing myself... sorry. The edges are correct but I got the evs all wrong, then I got them wrong again.

Ok: after 6 average bets with £1 stake the backer has lost a pound - IE he's lost £1 5 times and won £4 once. On those 6 bets he has risked £6 so his expected value is -16.6%, not 20% like I said above.

On the other side the layer has won £1, but he risked £24 (£4 six times) to get it, his expected value is 4.1% ish.
Report TameTheTiger March 3, 2018 9:15 PM GMT
Yes I get it,thanksGrin
Report betting_masta August 11, 2020 9:18 PM BST
A job in B+Q might be more rewarding in financial
and non-financial ways.

this is very true
Report ericster August 12, 2020 9:44 AM BST
Mr.H, I might just go check that book out. I'm curious and it could be an interesting read.
Report ericster August 12, 2020 11:03 AM BST

Aug 12, 2020 -- 10:44AM, ericster wrote:


Mr.H, I might just go check that book out. I'm curious and it could be an interesting read.


Stocks?Shocked

Report betting_masta August 12, 2020 4:04 PM BST
My problem with Buchdahl is he doesn't think it's possible for anyone to make money gambling, yet he runs a website which offers football stats and other things on betting - conflict of interest there. He seems to me to be a naysayer who has failed so he doesn't think anyone else can win. You could come to him with somebody who wins long term at gambling and he'll just label them as "lucky". I should probably read his book, I've thought about it, maybe I just hate him because he'll end up shining a light on my own inadequacies. To me, Buchdahl just comes across as a know-it-all failed gambler. He even calls himself a "Betting Expert". Well, I would just love to see his Betfair P&L to see if he can back that up. i'd be very wary of taking any sort of betting advice off these so-called experts with no skin in the game. He probably doesn't even bet into sports markets yet he's lecturing us on how to do it or not do it. I'd much rather listen to somebody like Peter Webb who has actually succeeded in something other than writing a book on a subject. I'm on his site now and I've just noticed bookmaker affiliation everywhere - he claims nobody can make money gambling yet he's selling people off to bookmakers- that's not right with me.
Report ericster August 12, 2020 4:46 PM BST

Feb 21, 2018 -- 1:18PM, aye robot wrote:


If you made £15k last year then you've a realistic chance of making £20k this year, but if you lost last year you'll probably lose this year too. If you're not a lifetime winner then forget 20k and just try to make more than zero - or better yet forget about making a profit, bet for fun and do something else for money. If you're not certain whether you're a lifetime winner or not then you're not. If you were you would know. Here's a truth that many would rather not acknowledge: It's NOT about discipline. People like to blame discipline for their losses because it's something they feel they could change but if you're getting value bets the issue just doesn't arise. Discipline is a problem for LOSING gamblers - not winning ones. Nobody 'chases' wins. You don't lose because of indiscipline, you lose because you didn't get value, then you make it worse by indiscipline. If your records are showing profits then losses are a bit annoying but they don't cause silly behaviour.Only a vanishingly small minority of players ever make returns similar to working and they all have specialist skills, knowledge or access. Sticking at it isn't enough, going full time isn't enough and having a large bank just means losing more. If you can't make a profit in your spare time with a little bit of money then you're not going to make it. If you can - that's great, now build up slowly and don't imagine that you can scale your winnings just by scaling your bank - it doesn't work like that.


I like your tone ayrob, I'm just a two-quiding dreamer with high hopes and no, size doesn't matter but in spite of what you guys say, my DOWNFALL right now IS indiscipline. Once again, I'm on a losing run from bets that I shouldn't have gone anywhere near , now I kick my arz, grit my teeth, stick to what I consider to be the absolute screamers, and I SHALL recover, resolving once more to stick to what fits the brief.

This time, I swear to myself, this time.

Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner September 7, 2020 6:54 PM BST
Total Games in League Season     380
   
System Selected Games     115
   
System Game Ratio     115/380 = 30.26%
   
Losses     21
   
Win Ratio     21/115 = 81.74%
   
Start of Season Bank =    +100
   
Total Unit Profit =     +43.30
   
Total Bank at Season End =      +143.30
   
ROI =     43.30/100 = 43.30%
   
Yield =     43.30/364 = 11.90%
   
Profitability =      43.30/50.70 = 85.40%

System I have created aiming to win 1 unit (1 % of starting bank) per bet. Seen as high risk? Yes but offset with historical results to back up and mitigate risk.  This was the results from the French league from a few years ago. Year to year points total vary from +17 to =+63 Some will say the ROI is calculated wrong. Its taking from a betting blog that gave a detailed breakdown on why most bettors have yield and ROI the wrong way around. Dont get to hung up on that. Can it be done. yes. Takes a lot of detachment from the worrying about the value of the money and thinking in terms of pure %. One mans 2% could be $20 and anothers $2000. Getting past thinking in terms of what 2000 could buy and viewing it purely as a % is hard to do but you must be able to do so in order to detach. It takes putting in the work in terms of reading and knowing your mind so you wont chase. Contrast a banker mentality to a gambler. One is cold, calculated, professional, successful. The other hot, reactive, impulsive, undisciplined.
Report askari1 October 5, 2020 10:00 AM BST
I would think it's much easier to win 10k on here and 10k from placing over-the-counter bets, even 6.5k Betfair / 13.5k fixed-odds layers than it is to make 20k on here. I'm saying this as someone who has good subject-knowledge (on the horses) and no technical advantages, like being botted-up and hitting the markets many times a second.

The places in the ecosystem have probably been taken by the programmers--and if there's a better way to do it, it's unlikely to be someone retiring from another job who hasn't done it before who's going to displace the incumbent winners. This leaves winning through exploiting a pricing edge. On this point, why should there be a question of scaling up?--if you've won, you should have been able to bet bigger playing up your winnings. It's more likely that the market liquidity only accommodates your size of bet. Then there's expanding into new markets--but how likely are you to do equally well on something you know less well?

Someone like me would also face the problem of only being able to stay engaged for the big days--the events that interest me, that I would talk about down the pub, not the two-bit day-in day-out grind, where I would be inattentive and cavalier. I think I would lose if I went full-time, whereas as it is I have a paying side-interest (that pays me less per hour than my ordinary job).
Report askari1 October 5, 2020 10:35 AM BST
As for indiscipline, of course it is easy for anyone to think in a facile way, 'I lose through indiscipline and win through skill'.

You should never open any position, as a trader or whatever, you wouldn't want if the site immediately crashed and didn't come up again until after the event was decided. This applies to the price and stake.

Bettors should also keep a note of the subjective implied value of every bet they take--i.e. if the bet cost them £1, how much would they sell it for? £1.03? They can then look at their actual returns as against the amount they thought they were going to make. They can aggregate bets into categories and investigate whether they have a pricing edge, and how well they've estimated it, on particular types of events. They can ask whether they go on tilt, whether they become over-confident, after an outsize win or loss. But I would guess the indisciplined gambler doesn't know his subjective edge, and doesn't have the time making a series of headless bets to work it out. But this can easily be automated. For instance, if a horse is 12-1 and I make it 17-2, I have a program that works out the subjective value of my bets for me without my having to do the arithmetic again. I bodged it up myself, which is why it's confused by new odds like 16/5!
Report six_six_six October 5, 2020 3:05 PM BST
£1.36 or 13*(2/19)


(Market Price + 1)/(Est Price + 1)
Report betting_masta October 5, 2020 4:22 PM BST
Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner

back-fitted "systems" don't tend to do well, they suffer from way too many biases. Unless you're actually backing the system "live" then it's all just a nice bit of theory and much of it is pie-in-the-sky thinking. You're basically saying you've got a 43% edge on the market which would put you above genius. Tony Bloom and his cronies aim for about 1-2% edge and they're in the top tier. My advice would be to think on that before you dive in head-first
Report betting_masta October 5, 2020 4:25 PM BST
the basic thinking with football markets (match odds, over/under) is that the opening line is almost close to perfect, in which case if you are betting those pre-match odds you will probably break-even even with the best strategy in the world. a bit of tinkering can give you a certain % of an edge (either way!) so it's folly to think you can bet into those markets pre-game and take a profit. any amount of back-fitting won't help you, in fact it will only give you false confidence which will wreck your head when it doesn't do what you think it's supposed to do. even the best are only going to eek out a few % in terms of profit
Report betting_masta October 5, 2020 4:27 PM BST
that's not to say it's impossible to make a profit from betting football because anything is possible, it's just improbable if you use the approach which 99.99% of people would when trying to predict whether a game will finish over or under 2.5 goals, or who wins the match using pre-match odds
Report The Management October 5, 2020 6:02 PM BST
Some football statistics from this seasons EPL admittedly after just 38 Games Played:

3 x draws from 38 games
0 x 0:0 draws from 38 games
7 x Over 6.5 goals from 38 games

What is different this year? - We could put it down to VAR - but that was around last year and theoretically cancels more goals than it adds, we could put it down to lack of pre-season training/fitness due to Covid/Lockdown or Lack of spectators cancelling out/diminishing Home advantage, Maybe attackers have got better or defenders/goalkeepers have got worse, etc, etc, etc.

But does anyone think these currently short-term (only 4 games played per team out of 38 games) trends will continue or is this just a freak set of results that will have to revert to the mean over the remainder of the season? Either of those views could be profitable.

But for people that use statistics (I'm playing devils advocate) - surely there is quite a strong argument for both - but both cannot happen - it either continues or it reverts!
Report Rigsby October 5, 2020 6:48 PM BST
@bm – well said

@tm – “randomness” -  the killer of all systems
Report askari1 October 5, 2020 6:53 PM BST
Winner


You don't have a measure of your variance, nor any estimates of your edge or any modelling of possible drawdown scenarios. There's nothing about your bet size or the size of your bank. Beyond saying 'I did well', the figures you've given are next to useless for anyone trying to assess whether your system would on average win or not.

The Management

There are always people with narratives of why 'it's different this time'. There are so many, possible, that it induces market mispricing; and it's profitable on average to make money by supposing that things will revert.

In other words, oppose the 'narrative fallacy' and other biases from the psychological literature.
Report askari1 October 5, 2020 6:53 PM BST
Winner


You don't have a measure of your variance, nor any estimates of your edge or any modelling of possible drawdown scenarios. There's nothing about your bet size or the size of your bank. Beyond saying 'I did well', the figures you've given are next to useless for anyone trying to assess whether your system would on average win or not.

The Management

There are always people with narratives of why 'it's different this time'. There are so many, possible, that it induces market mispricing; and it's profitable on average to make money by supposing that things will revert.

In other words, oppose the 'narrative fallacy' and other biases from the psychological literature.
Report The Management October 5, 2020 7:01 PM BST
But askari - mostly due to the reasons that I have stated - is it not actually very different this year compared to previous years?

Rigsby - If I accept your answer "randomness" - are you also saying that it could not have been predicted and it will revert to the norm?
Report Latalomne October 5, 2020 8:27 PM BST
Posted this on the Liverpool thread, but it seems relevant here.  Football365's interview with a supposed EPL player about what's going on and why:
https://bit.ly/3ncDJPg
Report Rigsby October 5, 2020 9:41 PM BST
@ Management
Randomness –“ the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization; unpredictability”

As an example, relevant to your post. This season, Man U’s 2 home games have had 4 and 7 gpg, and Spurs away 7 and 7 gpg.
My question now is what is your prediction for the gpg in the next Man U home game and next Spurs away game? Answer: any random number between 11 and 0, and  14 and 0.  So place your bets!!
PS. Last season Man U averaged 3.0 gpg at home, and Spurs 2.90 gpg away, but only 4/19 and 5/19 had 3 gpg.
i.e. random scorelines producing an average number
Report politicspunter October 6, 2020 11:57 AM BST

Oct 5, 2020 -- 5:25PM, betting_masta wrote:


the basic thinking with football markets (match odds, over/under) is that the opening line is almost close to perfect, in which case if you are betting those pre-match odds you will probably break-even even with the best strategy in the world. a bit of tinkering can give you a certain % of an edge (either way!) so it's folly to think you can bet into those markets pre-game and take a profit. any amount of back-fitting won't help you, in fact it will only give you false confidence which will wreck your head when it doesn't do what you think it's supposed to do. even the best are only going to eek out a few % in terms of profit


This is a crucial point.

the basic thinking with football markets (match odds, over/under) is that the opening line is almost close to perfect, in which case if you are betting those pre-match odds you will probably break-even even with the best strategy in the world

You need to look for a sport/ betting medium where the initial odds are not perfect, the less perfect the better.

Report The Management October 6, 2020 1:07 PM BST
Sorry PP - I do totally agree with this You need to look for a sport/ betting medium where the initial odds are not perfect, the less perfect the better.

But I completely disagree that the opening line for match odds is almost close to perfect. If you look at any game (especially low liquidity but also many with high liquidity) there is (imo) a surprisingly vast range of prices matched. Even in a high profile/liquidity football match - a home team favourite with BFSP (price at kick-off) of say 1.85 - will often have been matched for good money between 1.75 - 1.95 and maybe between 1.70 & 2.00 (to lesser money).

Whatever you bet on (be it Politics or football) is completely irrelevant - it's all about Prices and Maths. It doesn't matter if you bet The Lib Dems at 1.85 or Chelsea at home at 1.85. The 1.85 backers will probably lose to commission in the long term. The guys that persistently get 1.75 will be losers and the guys that persistently get 1.95 will be winners.

I'm sure you would like to see some fresh blood in the politics markets but I'm sure there are plenty of people making pay - even in the mainstream leagues.
Report G Hall October 6, 2020 1:43 PM BST
Maybe a stupid question, and it wouldn't surprise me if it is.

Over 2.5 goals are 2.12 and I rightly or wrongly make it a 2.25 shot. I then wait until I get 2.25 provided there isn't a goal.

My question is this so wrong or flawed, and if so why.
Report The Management October 6, 2020 1:49 PM BST
You are going to need better bait than that to get a response from me to the above post G Hall - but you have a fine haul here already.

If you are losing - there are two choices available to you to improve your returns imo:

1) As per your friend Dr Crippen - just pick more winners because price doesn't matter.

2) Accept that price is everything - and only play when the price is right (by which I mean wrong!).

GL
Report G Hall October 6, 2020 4:17 PM BST
Thanks as always for your replies TM, although I think you are a bit sceptical I have nothing to hide, and no ulterior motive.

When a person is in their fifties as I am then I think the following criteria can be applied, if they are in employment, ie working for someone else.
1/ They have a highly paid job.
2/ They are on the fiddle.
3/ They are basically dummies (like me).

It may be a bit harsh but that's how I look at it. I want to get out of category 3.
Report The Management October 6, 2020 5:40 PM BST
Sorry if I sound sceptical - but there are only so many times I can tell you that price is everything.

On a brighter/lighter note somebody has started a VDW thread on the HR forum Laugh and I know you love those.
Report Rigsby October 6, 2020 6:00 PM BST
Over 2.5 goals are 2.12 and I rightly or wrongly make it a 2.25 shot

IMO decay is a wonderful tool in a market when you see it as a 2.12 shot and the market sees it as a 2.25 shot. In your example how have you come up with your opinion that it is a 2.25 shot? The market (experts, with far more resources than you or me) see it as a 2.12 shot.
When you bet at 2.25 in play you are betting at the market price at that time, rather than at 2.48 which is what a 2.25 shot would have decayed to.
Report askari1 October 8, 2020 12:56 AM BST
The Management

I also do not believe that there are so many reasons that there should be fewer draws this year. This is what I meant: 'oppose the narrative fallacy', back the draw when it seems to be mispriced.

'Possibly' in my post came out as 'possible', which may have been confusing. I meant that there were possibly many participants in the market who had an unrealistic notion of why draws were less likely. They were distorting the prices. The upshot is that the draw may be a good bet in some cases.
Report askari1 October 8, 2020 1:04 AM BST
G Hall

Was your stupid question a genuinely stupid question or a disingenuous question? You're talking about letting your bet go into play? You don't see that the correct price changes with time?
Report G Hall October 8, 2020 9:58 AM BST
Yes askari, I see that but if a punter let's a football match go in play for 10/15 minutes he is getting a slightly better price than if he bet pre match, if the score remains nil nil.
Report G Hall October 8, 2020 12:28 PM BST
Ok a pretty poor reply even by my standards.

I concur that the markets are pretty well spot on. In order to win, you guys are saying you must get value to make it pay.

So even though football markets are spot on most of the time, they cannot predict the outcome of the contest due to the random effect.

To my simple mind if I can back over 2.5 goals for example at a few ticks more after 15 minutes, because I have the added advantage of watching the first fifteen minutes am I not getting an edge that way. I have the double whammy of observing the pattern the game may take and a better price.
Report Rigsby October 8, 2020 4:44 PM BST
@GHall
I think your posts over the last couple of years seeking the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow are genuine, so I will give it one final go. You have had a lot of genuine helpful advice from other forumites (me included), but either you don’t believe what has been said or you don’t understand, and because you are still posting, it’s fair to assume that you are still not succeeding. You have also been told that no one is going to post their winning formula.

The 2.5 goals market is probably the tightest market in the soccerbook, especially in high liquidity markets, because it is pivotal to all other markets. The soccer markets are mathematical exercises which are easily managed by bots, with better brains and processors than you or I. They understand the percentage difference interlinking different overs markets relative to the odds at the time, and are programmed to skim any flaws. As has recently been posted, they are happy to skim at 1-2% at a time, which they can do several times in a game and multiple games at the same time. Their algorithms bets cannot lose.
With 2.5 overs there are only 2 outcomes, 2 goals or less or 3 goals or more. In theory (but not in practice) it’s a 50/50 chance – it’s either under or over.
In your example earlier, the market thought, at KO, that there was a 47% chance (2.12) of there being 3 or more goals in 90 mins play. You thought, although you have not explained why, that there was only a 44% chance (2.25) of there being 3 or more goals in 80mins play.
In your scenario, you need to be finding games where the market thinks there is a 44% chance and you think it should be 47%. Then you can chance the decay, because you can bet at 2.38 something you think should be 2.23.
Better still to play in markets where the perceived chance is above 50%, because in your scenario you are betting on something you think has a less than 50% chance of success. The market thinks that unders is more likely than overs. Far better to bet on something you think has a 80% chance of success.
These markets will not be the 2.5 goals market. More likely other overs markets in lower profile leagues. FWIW, I love overs, but not 2.5.
If you want to bet or trade soccer, my advice is to firstly decide what it is you want to do (bet or trade).Then look at and test different markets and strategies in different countries, learn and understand the relationship and decay between the different overs markets relative to the odds. Understand why the market odds of one game in the same league on the same day for the same outcome is 1.25 and another is 1.40, and which represents the best value. See how both sides of a market move during a game and what is actually  traded, and why it is there.

Finally, to answer your other question “Why do so many people lose at gambling?” – because they think they can win (bookies ads sell winning, not losing). But they cannot, because they either don’t believe or understand reality, have an obsession to bet rather than wait for an occasional well researched opportunity, and/or they approach it recreationally rather than business like.
I genuinely hope this is helpful to you and any others reading it, but IMO you will not make 20K a year.

PS. My point about randomness, is that an average number is the outcome of random numbers. 10+2 = av. of 6, 6-6 = av. of 6

PPS. "To my simple mind if I can back over 2.5 goals for example at a few ticks more after 15 minutes, because I have the added advantage of watching the first fifteen minutes am I not getting an edge that way. I have the double whammy of observing the pattern the game may take and a better price."
The market will see this and it wont be 2.25
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner October 9, 2020 3:28 AM BST
betting_masta Its not something thats come about easy. Its taken me over 10 years of on and off trying. I am using it live across the big 5 European leagues.
Report politicspunter October 9, 2020 12:19 PM BST
If you are still trying a system on and off for over ten years, does it not suggest it isn't profitable long term?
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner October 9, 2020 12:36 PM BST
10 years of on/off searching, testing. Not 10 years trying the same system. On and off because in between that time I moved to North America and the break away was good for me.
Report politicspunter October 10, 2020 11:24 AM BST
Hey, nice! Where were you based?
Report betting_masta October 22, 2020 7:46 PM BST
UserRigsby • October 6, 2020 6:00 PM BST
Over 2.5 goals are 2.12 and I rightly or wrongly make it a 2.25 shot


in that case you have a 3% edge, take away BF commission and what are you left with? also your prices better be spot on, then not to mention variance could kill you in the short term before you even make any profit. these are football markets. in-play is another  matter entirely, there is lots of value to be had in play
Report betting_masta October 22, 2020 7:47 PM BST
anyone who wants to try football betting, try in play, there are far more good opportunities. it's still not easy though
Report betting_masta October 22, 2020 7:48 PM BST
most of successful gambling is about the mindset. you could have the  best "system" or strategy in the world but if you can't apply it properly and stake properly, or even just deal with losses, then you'll struggle no matter what
Report Winner_Winner_Chicken_Diner October 24, 2020 2:41 PM BST
Politicspunter, I was in Washington state and then in BC, both for a little while. Mostly in ALberta. Different world out there.

correct betting masta, mindset was the biggest switch for me. Principles that sound simple but can you internalise them. I will write up a detailed post on that when I get a chance and share my 2 cents for whats it worth to anyone.
Report shiny new shoes please October 25, 2020 1:34 AM GMT
Just came across this great read.
Some very clever cookies
Get ahead of the scalpers(live racing)
Get a huge bank for 20k ayear.(250+)
Aim for 10%+ of turnover.
If you've a system that works.(if it doesn't you lose it)
Leave the shorties  alone.(no free money)
Use places with lowest commission for as long as possible.
Find your niche and stick with it(nothing else)
Enjoy what your doing
Stress changes dopamine levels(bad decisions)
Positively.
Some real good reading
some should write a book.
Report Rigsby October 27, 2020 12:22 PM GMT
My post 5th October @ 21.41

“@ Management
Randomness –“ the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization; unpredictability”

As an example, relevant to your post. This season, Man U’s 2 home games have had 4 and 7 gpg, and Spurs away 7 and 7 gpg.
My question now is what is your prediction for the gpg in the next Man U home game and next Spurs away game? Answer: any random number between 11 and 0, and  14 and 0.  So place your bets!!
PS. Last season Man U averaged 3.0 gpg at home, and Spurs 2.90 gpg away, but only 4/19 and 5/19 had 3 gpg.
i.e. random scorelines producing an average number”


This weekend’s games (next games after the post):
Man Unt. @ home – total goals = Zero
Spurs @ away – total goals = One

QED
Report The Management October 27, 2020 3:37 PM GMT
Nice after-time Rigsby! Laugh

This is what I originally posted and the question that I asked (even explaining that I was playing devils advocate):
 
The Management05 Oct 20 18:02Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 3,286 | Blogger: The Management's blog
Some football statistics from this seasons EPL admittedly after just 38 Games Played:

3 x draws from 38 games
0 x 0:0 draws from 38 games
7 x Over 6.5 goals from 38 games

What is different this year? - We could put it down to VAR - but that was around last year and theoretically cancels more goals than it adds, we could put it down to lack of pre-season training/fitness due to Covid/Lockdown or Lack of spectators cancelling out/diminishing Home advantage, Maybe attackers have got better or defenders/goalkeepers have got worse, etc, etc, etc.

But does anyone think these currently short-term (only 4 games played per team out of 38 games) trends will continue or is this just a freak set of results that will have to revert to the mean over the remainder of the season? Either of those views could be profitable.

But for people that use statistics (I'm playing devils advocate) - surely there is quite a strong argument for both - but both cannot happen - it ether continues or it reverts!


From memory - Nobody whatsoever gave a response prior to recent events (i.e I think it has to revert to the norm and there will be More Draws, Nil-Nil Draws & generally less goals). As I said at the time of my original post having a strong view (either way) might have been very profitable - but you would have to have backed your view prior to the games.

Still - very good of you to post your view after the most recent rounds of games though - much appreciated.
Report The Management October 27, 2020 3:43 PM GMT
To be fair - I suppose 0 is actually a number that falls between 0 and 11 - so you were correct in that much!
Report The Management October 27, 2020 3:46 PM GMT
And 1 is a number between 0 and 14 - so you got the double-up!

Are there any other EPL games coming up - where you predict the Total Goals Scored will be between 0-14 please?
Report Shanelee1966 October 29, 2020 6:07 PM GMT
We need some stability.

Villa score 7 against the champions, beyond belief.
Then can`t score one against minnows like Leeds Shocked
Report The Management October 29, 2020 7:10 PM GMT
Hi Shane - I thought I had completely killed the thread stone dead with my somewhat harsh (in hindsight) recent posts. so it's nice to see a further post.

I was hoping (with a question that I framed as playing devils advocate) to stimulate what might have been a much more interesting discussion (than whether G Hall can make it pay or not!) - about football stats, goal distribution, reversion to the mean, etc, etc. I got a couple of worthwhile replies (Askari & Latalomne if I remember correctly) but the general consensus seems to be that it's all totally random, cannot be predicted and absolutely anything can happen!

I remember a thread from a few years ago (when this place was still interesting) and one of the bigger hitters intended to place £5k on the draw for all remaining EPL games as there had been a huge draw drought up to that point in the season  - yet all historic data indicated (to him) that it would revert to the usual % draws by season end. It did if I remember correctly! -

Far more interesting that whether G Hall can make it pay or not imo (no offence G Hall) Wink to which we all know the answer! -
Report Shanelee1966 October 29, 2020 8:03 PM GMT
Hey Management

Good thread. Some good points made. Made a few bob backing teams over 5/1 match odds.
Used similar method first around 20 years ago.

My problem has always been discipline.
Report The Management October 30, 2020 12:42 AM GMT
Hi Shane - not sure why you stopped that thread (football outsiders) - if I remember correctly you got off to a storming start.
Report Shanelee1966 October 30, 2020 3:40 PM GMT
I carried on with a little more success, as mentioned, been doing it on & off for years.

Going to back over 2.5 Wolves v Palace tonight. 2.8 at the moment, will wait i/r for 3.1
Report Shanelee1966 October 30, 2020 3:40 PM GMT
I carried on with a little more success, as mentioned, been doing it on & off for years.

Going to back over 2.5 Wolves v Palace tonight. 2.8 at the moment, will wait i/r for 3.1
Report Shanelee1966 October 30, 2020 3:42 PM GMT
I used to trade correct score markets too. This would be an ideal match.
Report G Hall October 30, 2020 4:19 PM GMT
Good afternoon I would have thought Wolverhampton v Crystal Palace would be a pretty well nailed on unders game but just my opinion.

TM
What is it exactly that makes you feel the last comment, that you made about me is warranted, (no offence taken).
Report Latalomne October 30, 2020 6:04 PM GMT
There is no such thing as nailed on.  Everything has a price.
Report The Management October 30, 2020 6:52 PM GMT
G Hall30 Oct 20 17:19Joined: 26 Feb 06 | Topic/replies: 8,966 | Blogger: G Hall's blog
TM
What is it exactly that makes you feel the last comment, that you made about me is warranted, (no offence taken).


Hi G Hall (Thanks for not taking offence) - I know I can be a but harsh at times and it's hard to say anything with a smile or a wink in print.

I quite enjoy some of your threads - I just think that if you've been here 14 years and keep asking questions along the lines of "Can I make it pay?" or "How can I make it pay?" or "How can I make £14 per day" or "Should I turn pro?" etc, etc. Then the answer is probably "no!"

14 years is a long time and if you're still not sure, I really think the answer is no. By your own admission you also suffer with "discipline" problems. I'm pretty sure if I gave a compulsive gambler some hints that could turn him from a loser into a winner - he would still lose. (Not saying you are a degenerate - but if you even need to talk about discipline - then it's probably not for you). It's just a series of bets with a positive expectation - some will win, some will lose, over time you will win because you know your prices. If you lose on a (positive expectation) bet - you just carry on to the next positive expectation bet. There are no "days" - just a series of bets over time. If you deviate from positive expectation bets (for whatever reason) you will probably lose. GL.
Report The Management October 30, 2020 8:03 PM GMT
Crikes! - went for tea and then played a horse race, so only just read ^^^ this back - and even that seems a bit harsh when committed to print.

I wish you well G Hall and enjoy your threads. GL my friend.
Report cpfc4me October 30, 2020 10:21 PM GMT
There is no such thing as nailed on.  Everything has a price.

Martin Luther's 95 theses were nailed on, but there was certainly a price.

Curious about the "backing outsiders in football" strategy as this is typically the worst place to start looking for value.

Good call on the Unders in tonight's game Mr Hall. I was with you.
Report G Hall October 30, 2020 10:22 PM GMT
I had to read that a couple of times TM, although you are probably correct about me, if I address the discipline and sort it out I have hope, hope, and that's ok to. One step at a time, and I enjoy reading your posts as well, (no offence taken).
Report Shanelee1966 October 31, 2020 12:52 PM GMT
Slipped up last night on overs, i normally trade out with 2 f/h goals. I didn`t on this occasion.
Report Shanelee1966 October 31, 2020 12:53 PM GMT
Good match for correct score trading.
Report cpfc4me November 1, 2020 5:28 PM GMT
@Shanelee - I took a look at your idea of Football Outsiders, and in some leagues, a modified strategy might actually be profitable:

https://green-all-over.blogspot.com/2020/11/football-outsiders.html
Report Shanelee1966 November 1, 2020 7:04 PM GMT
I`ll take a look cpfc, cheers.
Report Shanelee1966 November 1, 2020 7:05 PM GMT
I`m not saying it`s the road to riches. Just that i`ve had some success with
it over the years.
Report Latalomne November 2, 2020 7:50 AM GMT
I also don't think you're advocating backing them blind, which seems to be how cpfc4me has taken it.
Report Gin November 2, 2020 9:24 PM GMT
The Management29 Oct 20 21:10Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 3,403 | Blogger: The Management's blog


I remember a thread from a few years ago (when this place was still interesting) and one of the bigger hitters intended to place £5k on the draw for all remaining EPL games as there had been a huge draw drought up to that point in the season  - yet all historic data indicated (to him) that it would revert to the usual % draws by season end. It did if I remember correctly! -

Far more interesting that whether G Hall can make it pay or not imo (no offence G Hall) Wink to which we all know the answer! -



That was the magician - thread here:

https://community.betfair.com/general_betting/go/thread/view/94082/23539318/lack-of-soccer-draws-this-season---time-to-bet?post_id=421138874#421138874
Report cpfc4me November 3, 2020 3:41 AM GMT
I also don't think you're advocating backing them blind, which seems to be how cpfc4me has taken it.

What are the parameters? I'll test them against my database.
Report The Management November 3, 2020 9:40 PM GMT
Hi Gin - Thank you so much for posting the link back to The Magicians thread from 2009!

It's still a great read 11 years later (imo) and some of those usernames bring back memories (both good and bad! - but mostly good). I had completely forgotten about the Scoop 6's - incredible that he won the best part of £2 million over the duration of that thread.

I think I was banned from posting at that time, having entered into a "heated discussion" with another forum user about the merits (or not!) of BF's latest "innovation" - either the Premium Charge or The Cash-out Facility or The Cross-matcher - anyway, it turned out he didn't disclose to me first that he was a BF employee (I still think that ban was pretty unfair!). But I have fond memories of previously (before the PC and my forum holiday) conversing with some of the posters on that thread.

It's a shame (imo) that my post on this thread (5th October) didn't stimulate the discussion that I was hoping for - when thinking back to The Magicians thread all those years ago:

When I posted on 5th October - there had been just 3 x draws from 38 games - but there have been 10 x draws since - from 30 additional games.
When I posted on 5th October - there had been 0 x 0:0 draws from 38 games - but there have been 2 x 0:0 draws since - from 30 additional games.
When I posted on 5th October - there had been 7 x Over 6.5 goals from 38 games - but there has only been 1 x +6.5 goals since - from 30 additional games.

Nothing quite on the scale of The Magician for me - and a strong argument could have been made about sample size - but there was money to be made from such a discussion (imo). Thanks again Gin.
Report Shanelee1966 November 4, 2020 8:39 AM GMT
To be honest i`ve turned my attention back to horse racing.

I`m always p1ssing about with methods/systems Crazy
Report Shanelee1966 November 4, 2020 8:47 AM GMT
Refining one over last 2 weeks. Off to a good start, naps can be verified
on your competitions Div2 before i get accused of bulls1tting anyone.
I calculate to mid-day prices on here. Comp to isp

+9.4 pts so far

Red Missile - 1.20 Muss    for today.
Report Gin November 4, 2020 4:11 PM GMT
The Management03 Nov 20 22:40Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 3,437 | Blogger: The Management's blog
Hi Gin - Thank you so much for posting the link back to The Magicians thread from 2009!



No problem - They were the halcyon days of the forum. There was always lots of interesting discussions and ideas. Looking back at those types of threads show just how crap this place has now become. This is evidenced by the lack of discussion of your post. The sad thing is that next time you spot something like that you probably won't bother posting (why would you?).

Anyway, good luck.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com