Tennis
Cilic US Open thrashing of Murray: The Sequel
|
By:
razz mate, you're not awake are you? 1.1 is never massive value because
1) it's only 10% profit 2) You can't trade out if it goes bad 3) You have to get it right 9 times out of ten to break even. 4) Your bank won't be big enough to absorb a run of losses. |
|
By:
Gibbo, what do you think of Fed odds?
|
|
By:
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.
a 1.3 shot can be MASSIVE value , it all depends what the 1.3 pertains to ... |
|
By:
1) it's only 10% profit (correct)
2) You can't trade out if it goes bad (utterly wrong) 3) You have to get it right 9 times out of ten to break even. (irrelevant, for anything to be value, your estimation has to be better than the markets) 4) Your bank won't be big enough to absorb a run of losses. (nonsense) |
|
By:
serena through
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Not touching Fed odds mate!!!! 1.19?!
What if he starts off poorly. What if Berdch plays well defensively, which he has been. Too many valid issues. If Fed drifts to 1.6-2.0 on the other hand, now we're talking.... Top players are top players because they win the most, even when they're behind. |
|
By:
thanks for replying DStyle and darlo im really losing the will to reply now
 as for 4) if your stake is small enough compared to your bank (aka having a sensible staking plan) this should not matter in the slightest |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Your points on 2 ans 4 don't wash. You only need a tiny stake at 70-1 so trading out isn't an issue. Using a sensible staking strategy at 1.1 means you'll be making peanuts unless you're the bank of england.
|
|
By:
Gibbo, I don't know what your maths is like but I'm guessing it's not good. Nonetheless, I will recommend this book because I think it gives a fantastic set of explanations about how betting markets operate and it's really quite accessible to the non-mathematician. Its called "Information efficiency in Financial and Betting Markets" by Leighton Vaughn Williams. Read it, it will help you.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
not if most of those 89% were at 1.03. You should be looking at matches he's won priced at 1.19 if using that basis
|
|
By:
You only need a tiny stake at 70-1
and there endeth this discussion. |
|
By:
D
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
well that's the wrong view then. why use that?
|
|
By:
federer's on after a week long holiday !!
|
|
By:
Darlo, I'm sorry to be a cunto cos I know you're a decent fella but that's wrong. Blindly backing above 1.1 willnot provide a winning strategy, to post something like that might influence someone that doesn't understand value. Someone like gibbo. Luckily, he has decided to refuse to learn about gambling, even though he puts his hard-earned on the line. Shall we just leave him an continue taking his money?
|
|
By:
Darlo, long term stats don't account for today's variables and again, its comparative peanuts. Tell you what, next time you see a top 4 player go above 1.7, back him and trade out. You'll soon convert.
evski, i'm guessing you're a numbers guy. In response to your insult, I have an Hons degree in Biochemistry and so have an excellent grasp of advanced mathematics. You have to understand both the sporting event and the maths in unison to find value. Its no good crunching numbers if you don't fully grasp the nuances of the event. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
yes fair enough Darlo. If you look at fed's record against Berdych it is 11-4 but on hard courts it is 3-3 and since 2010 it is 3-3. But Fed is 3-0 in slams
|
|
By:
Yes evski, just leave him. Perhaps one day many years from now he will understand (maybe).
|
|
By:
an honours degree you say?
as opposed to what exactly, not passing your exams? |
|
By:
gibbo is still basically saying that all 1.1 markets are NEVER value hence any random 1.1 shot could always be laid and overall you'd be in profit.
|
|
By:
Gibbo, this isn''t advanced maths, it's baby stuff. trading in itself is a bullshit concept. each bet should be made only ifyou believe it to be value at the time.
Read some books and come back when you have learned. If you have a degree, you should know better than to profess knowledge when you clearly have none. I know that's rude and I'm sorry but your type of uneducated bull comes on here all the time and it really annoys me. My sincere aploogies, I real;ly am trying to help you, even though I know you do not want that help. |
|
By:
Bacelona 9-0 up at half time at 1.1 would be value, not that you'd get those odds but if some mug offered them you'd snap the hand off him
|
|
By:
lurka, what if the side they were playing came back to 9-9 with a minute to go??
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
hairy muff, Darlo. I saw you correct i t straight away and I know you know the score :)
|
|
By:
DStyle, its a BSc Hons 2:1 which means passing every exam at over 60% in a course with a low pass rate and high drop-out rate. I only say because you ask in a demeaning manner and evski questioned my grasp of maths.
Anything else? |
|
By:
razz , I know
 he said he doesn't back anything under 1.3 |
|
By:
Gibbo, your understanding of statistics is, without doubt, piss poor. Biochemistry does not require advanced mathematics at degree level. You don't even need maths to do the course ffs.
|
|
By:
Darlo and Evski....shown up for the number-crunching amateurs you truly are. Resorting to insults is the first sign of defeat in a debate. Refusing to lay off your profits is even MORE stupid. Unpredictable variables make laying off essential when betting on sports.
Let me get this straight....In your book, I should be studying implied odds, backing low and refusing to trade out of winning positions? Yup, my work is done here. |
|
By:
lol evski
 |
|
By:
"honours" is a redundant adjective. an ordinary degree means you failed.
i also think most people would generally consider the institution being a bit more relevant to the quality of the degree rather than the drop out rate and low pass rate. anyhoo, you've been given some excellent advice on here, because you're wrong on a number of things (it's not really up for discussion), i'd take it if i were you. nothing wrong with wanting to be a better bettor. |
|
By:
evski, yes you do need A-level maths minimum mate. Good factfinding....do you research your stats with the same voracity and thoroughness?
|
|
By:
why is ur need to be right is so strong Gibbo ?
Gibbo |