Tennis
Cilic US Open thrashing of Murray: The Sequel
|
By:
  |
|
By:
cilic 48 ues
|
|
By:
Gibbop, unfortunately you are wrong. I don't want to patronise you but you are failing to understand the concept of value.
Each price has an implied probability, i.e. the expectation an event will happen. You calculate implied probability by dividing one by the digital odds - evens, for example, is 1/2 or 50%. Now, if you make a bet that has odds of 1/1.1 or 91% the that bet is said to be fair if the event occurs 91 time in 100, it is super-fair or value if it occurs more than 91 times in 100 (91%). That is the principle of value in a nutshell: an event that will occur more often than its odds imply. It does not mean that the bet will always win. |
|
By:
Cilic will only go top 10 if he wins this match. 13 otherwise
|
|
By:
still a few quid up in the 6-0 set ?? market
|
|
By:
idiot cillic
|
|
By:
Inspired.
|
|
By:
all going now though, I hoovered it up !!
|
|
By:
he just wants off the court, will take a bagel just to get off more quickly
|
|
By:
boom gtfi !!!
|
|
By:
GSM
|
|
By:
Darlo, listen to yourself! 100 bets in a row correct just to make £78!!! Are you crazy?
Can you honestly say that backing ManU vs Saints at 2-1 down or Andy Murray today at 3.15 at long odds isn't extremely good value. This stuff happens all the time! I don't see how you guys can argue your strategy isn't massively flawed both mathematically and from a betting judgement perspective. |
|
By:
sensational from the position he was in
|
|
By:
if i offered odss of 1.1 on gibbo not admitting he was wrong. would people consider that value!
 |
|
By:
Thank you Andy Murray. Two more wins sir.
|
|
By:
i would
|
|
By:
gibbo , you've got ur ideas and I have mine , we may not agree , but if it works for you , then good luck mate
|
|
By:
so easy for murray this match
|
|
By:
big MOMMA is destroying sweet ana
  |
|
By:
Gibbo it's exactly the same strategy as yours, betting on value, mathematical advantage. It's just at lower odds/return but is exactly the same principle
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
evski, you're crazy. Unless you have a crystal ball, you can't mathematically attach value to sports betting. Value is simply a judgement call when betting due to the many unpredictable variables. Even the best sports statisticians have trouble turning a good profit due to this simple issue.
|
|
By:
evski , you can't teach university level to kindergarten
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
gibbo respond to some of the flaws we have pointed out in your statements. dont ask which ones just scroll up as you have already asked
|
|
By:
Gibbo, you are falling into the classic trap of thinking that long-shots are the best way to make cash, whcih, in turn, leads to the overbacking of long-shots and underbacking of favourites and the resulting disparity in their prices and therefore their respective odds. Google the longshot-favourite bias and if that doesn't help you then you can't say we didn't try.
|
|
By:
I'm not judging you guys, just your low odds backing strategy. I've argued my corner because someone questioned my rationale. As far as I can see, no-one has offered anything verging on a decent argument why backing Murray at 1.18 was a good idea.
|
|
By:
and you have not offered anything verging on a arguement why 1.1 cant be value
|
|
By:
evski, if only that was the case, you would be right. However, I back each bet individually irrespective of whether its 2.0, 3.0 or 75.0
Its a simple case of spotting value and for that reason I never touch anything below 1.3 as those are the bets that have burnt both myself and my colleagues the most. |
|
By:
Darlo, I disagree. Value is a easily definable concept and it is, as I said, when the implied odds are greater than the real odds. How you calculate that is your business but there is no question that that is what value is.
|
|
By:
razz, have you been alseep at the keyboard, looking at porn or both? I've worn out my laptop describing the specific points of my argument.... wake up son!
|
|
By:
yes i read them and you contradicted yourself
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
evski, please tell us why the huge amount of variables in sport don't affect your predictive model of value? I bet you can't...
|
|
By:
Darlo, pretty sure i can judge both quite easily mate.....a winning strategy is good, while a losing one is bad. That wasn't too hard was it?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Gibbo, you say you look for value but you don't understand the concept of value. Here's why you should back a low-odds value-bet:
If you back 210 1.1 bets for £1,000 a time but each bet, for simplicity's sake, has real odds of 1.05, you will win 200 and lose ten. 200 * 0.1 * 1,000 = 20,000 10 * 1,000 = 10,000 You will be £10,000 better off. You will lose ten times and you will lose big relative to the potential profit but in the long term you win. If you do not understand how to operate a staking plan you ar f***ed. |
|
By:
i'm not sure i want to argue his corner that much but......
if you define "massive value" as anything greater than 15% between your calculation of implied chance and what the market is offering, 1.1 can never be "massive value". |