Forums

General Betting

Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
knuckles
17 Jan 21 10:42
Joined:
Date Joined: 19 Sep 11
| Topic/replies: 552 | Blogger: knuckles's blog
Hi all.
Now talking long term here but anyone got a opinion on what is a good edge in percentage terms from ...
(A) win betting
(B) Lay betting
As a criteria 1000 bets per annum over 3 years.
I remember reading in a book ( can’t remember which one ) that 1% is good weather that is true or indeed correct I don’t know.

In “Edge” of say 1% does that equate to every £100 invested the expected profit is £1.00 is my understanding correct.
Whilst you can find many claims of up to 10% edge via google I think that is quite  a extravagant claims and probably impossible to
Most.
A edge If betting to win versus laying  is there any difference in what the same edge figure achieves.

Thanks in advance
Pause Switch to Standard View Gamblers edge.
Show More
Loading...
Report dave1357 January 17, 2021 3:06 PM GMT
laying is generally just backing at odds on, so no difference in "edge" terms. ie laying at 6-1 is just backing at 1/6.

With regard to your particular edge, the lower it is, the more likely you are to have a long losing streak and therefore have to bet smaller amounts to avoid going broke.

Another problem with a small edge in sports/horse betting is that an analysis of results showing a small edge might just be variance and the method might actually be a losing one.
Report Jamie Deep January 27, 2021 6:26 PM GMT
I reckon my edge laying football home wins fluctuates between 4% - 8% per bet assessed over quarterly periods. The 1000 bets over three years causes me concern as assessing profitability / creating a reliable profit stream demands more imho.  I've placed over 1000 in the last 3 months!
Report VardonVoo. January 28, 2021 2:30 PM GMT
Jamie Deep - How long has it taken you to double your bank with that size of edge and what fraction of the optimal maximum Kelly bet do you use?
Report Jamie Deep January 28, 2021 5:13 PM GMT
You can double the bank with a stupidly massive bet overnight if you want, but that what then?  That way leads to chaos, not controlled profit.  Doubling my bank takes approx about between 2 to 3 months betting around 4% of the bank which is around 20% what the Kelly formula would recommend for the odds I target.  However, I've learnt not to follow Kelly too religiously for a number of reasons.  If I've got 40 bets running simultaneously on a Saturday and if the vast majority lose (it can happen!) I'd be bankrupt at 100% Kelly stake  And trying to divvy up the optimal stake across all bets just becomes a mathematical nightmare as they arent getting matched and completing all the same time.  So 20%ish feels about right with me losing about 15% of the bank if and when disaster strikes on a particular day.  I think the biggest problem with Kelly is that it encourages thinking of your edge as a single number relatively to your bank growth to level stakes across all bets.  It probably varies across the range of odds - in particular, it can lead to over-staking at particularly short odds where I've found my edge is less to at times non-existant!  So I divide the bank into odds bands and look how I'm performing each and stake accordingly.
Report Jamie Deep January 28, 2021 5:14 PM GMT
You can double the bank with a stupidly massive bet overnight if you want, but that what then?  That way leads to chaos, not controlled profit.  Doubling my bank takes approx about between 2 to 3 months betting around 4% of the bank which is around 20% what the Kelly formula would recommend for the odds I target.  However, I've learnt not to follow Kelly too religiously for a number of reasons.  If I've got 40 bets running simultaneously on a Saturday and if the vast majority lose (it can happen!) I'd be bankrupt at 100% Kelly stake  And trying to divvy up the optimal stake across all bets just becomes a mathematical nightmare as they arent getting matched and completing all the same time.  So 20%ish feels about right with me losing about 15% of the bank if and when disaster strikes on a particular day.  I think the biggest problem with Kelly is that it encourages thinking of your edge as a single number relatively to your bank growth to level stakes across all bets.  It probably varies across the range of odds - in particular, it can lead to over-staking at particularly short odds where I've found my edge is less to at times non-existant!  So I divide the bank into odds bands and look how I'm performing each and stake accordingly.
Report .Marksman. April 3, 2021 8:52 PM BST
You raise good points there Jamie.  I tend to only bet on horses nowadays and, with the exception of a handful of antepost laying books each year, I concentrate on backing and, occasionally laying favourites.  This is because I believe that if you have an edge (something that is not regularly taken into account by the market) you are best off betting at as close to evens as is possible.  I can't prove this mathematically, but it is something that seems to be true and my own research, using a racing results database going back further than the start of Betfair SP, confirms this.  The downside of this is that if you have a negative edge (that is your selections are worse than those who just pick their horses at random) you will lose more consistently when your selection is close to evens.
Taking this into account, I can see that if you have an edge on football betting, asian handicap would be the way to go:  For instance, if you backed the underdog with +2 goals, you would not feel hard done by if they did well and only lost by one goal because it would still be a win for you at close to evens.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com