Cilic US Open thrashing of Murray: The Sequel

cilic 48 ues

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.

Cilic will only go top 10 if he wins this match. 13 otherwise

still a few quid up in the 6-0 set ?? market

idiot cillic

Inspired.

all going now though, I hoovered it up !!

he just wants off the court, will take a bagel just to get off more quickly

boom gtfi !!!

GSM

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.

sensational from the position he was in

if i offered odss of 1.1 on gibbo not admitting he was wrong. would people consider that value!

Thank you Andy Murray. Two more wins sir.

i would 

gibbo , you've got ur ideas and I have mine , we may not agree , but if it works for you , then good luck mate

so easy for murray this match

big MOMMA is destroying sweet ana

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

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:01AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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.

That's a problem with your psychology though. People think this game is the way to a fast buck doubling their bank every day and making a million inside a year. That's why so few people post profits through gambling and so few do on here.

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:02AM, nicky27 wrote:

gibbo , you've got ur ideas and I have mine , we may not agree , but if it works for you , then good luck mate

This I agree with. I don't care what anyone makes or loses, but I do wish them all luck.

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.

evski , you can't teach university level to kindergarten

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:04AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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.

And yet you claim you won't get a 70/1 shot wrong 69 times!!!!!

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

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.

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.

and you have not offered anything verging on a arguement why 1.1 cant be value

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.

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.

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!

yes i read them and you contradicted yourself

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:08AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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.

Because people thought he was better than an 84% chance of winning. If they're right, they make money in the long run, if they're wrong, they lose in the long run. You can't judge a winning strategy on one win/loss, nor can you a losing strategy.

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...

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:11AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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!

and you still haven't explained why 1.1 "is never massive value"

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?

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:15AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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?

But that doesn't even meet what I said. I said you can't judge a winning/losing strategy on one bet. So what, if you backed Murray tonight at 1.18 and he lost, as long as you're winning more than 84% of the time.

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.

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".

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.

Gibbo, what do you think of Fed odds?

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 ...

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)

serena through

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:18AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

razz mate, you're not awake are you? 1.1 is never massive value because 1) it's only 10% profit2) You can't trade out if it goes bad3) 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.

1) Fair enough. It does entirely depend on what you call massive value. 1.10 can inherently only be 10% above base, I agree.
2) Hmm. You can't trade out of a 70/1 shot if it heads straight north as Man United would have done had they never scored.
3) Irrelevant. You simply have to win at least 90% of bets.
4) Adopt a sensible staking strategy.

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.

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

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:18AM, DStyle wrote:

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".

that's not right. a 49/1 shot has 2% chance, 15% more value is 56.35/1

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.

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.

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:22AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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.

Fed has an 89.71% win ratio at the US. Now I know you won't always get 1.10, but if you back him above 1.10 then that 89% record, means in the long run you'll win. Simplistic I know, but 1.19 suggests value if he has an 89% chance of winning.

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

You only need a tiny stake at 70-1

and there endeth this discussion.

D

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:24AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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.

It depends on what sport you're trading. You have to understand how the market will react if it goes wrong right now.

Example one, if you back a 1.10 shot at football if the team is leading 1-0 to go with just a minute to go, then you only have a minute of risk. But if they concede the odds fly out and you lose most of your stake.

Example two, if you back Andy Murray at 1.10 tonight from the off and he loses the first set, he won't be that far out for you to try and red out.

Trading is about choosing entry and exit points and understanding how the market will react for you to reach those exit points, be it green ones or red ones.

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:26AM, lurka wrote:

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

I know. That's why I said a simplistic view.

well that's the wrong view then. why use that?

federer's on after a week long holiday !!

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?

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.

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:28AM, lurka wrote:

well that's the wrong view then. why use that?

If you think Fed still has an 89% chance of winning against Berdych, then 1.20 is value because the implied odds would be 1.10.

I appreciate that perhaps it wasn't the best example.

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:29AM, evski wrote:

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?

Yes, perhaps it wasn't the best example. I was just trying to use readily available stats when the implied odds against Berdych don't compare to most of his walkover matches that those stats would include.

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

Yes evski, just leave him.  Perhaps one day many years from now he will understand (maybe).

an honours degree you say?

as opposed to what exactly, not passing your exams?

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.

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.

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

lurka, what if the side they were playing came back to 9-9 with a minute to go??

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:36AM, evski wrote:

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.

"Trading in itself is a bullshit concept."

Magic. As much as I purely trade, I actually totally agree with this statement. Trading will see you giving away value.

hairy muff, Darlo. I saw you correct i t straight away and I know you know the score :)

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?

razz , I know
he said he doesn't back anything under 1.3

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.

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.

lol evski

"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.

evski, yes you do need A-level maths minimum mate. Good factfinding....do you research your stats with the same voracity and thoroughness?

why is ur need to be right is so strong Gibbo ?
Gibbo

gibbo any don't you back anything under 1.3 ??
If i told you a 1.3 shot had 99.99% chance of winning, would you still not back it ?

veracity

Sep 6, 2012 -- 1:42AM, Gibbo99 wrote:

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.

What?

and you can't really research something with veracity or veraciously.

(and don't post up the eroded meaning of the word)

gibbo

Nicky, DStyle, Darlo,

Lets get the **** outa here. Some people don't want to learn, which is great because if everyone had a clue markets would operate in a much more efficient manner.

Gibbo, you are a gibbon's bottom.

Oh, and when the **** piss could you swear on here?? (been outta the game for a year due to work)

he's so stubborn lol, not a good trait for a gambler. he should be open minded to what we are trying to tell him but im not sure we can put it much simpler. and we're only trying to help him

yeah razz , evski and darlo , I'm outta here, onto the fed thread

D style, i didn't bring up the quality of my maths, Evski did mate. Also, Hons is reasonably important and the institution was a top 10, redbrick university...i'd stop attempting to downgrade me as you'll fail > you're running out of options already and its really not that important in my opinion.

I won't be taking your advice as its poor unless you want to go bankrupt fairly quickly. Please outline where i'm wrong and while you're at it, tell me honestly if you think you're doing well on betfair? With your advice, i'd have a comfortable guess at 'not really'.

DStyle, you mug!!!!! Voracity mate. Read the context - if you know what that means.

ffs gibbo, it's on the internet you dumb cunto (yeah, that's right, I'm using ad hominems)

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ugstudy/courses/biomedicalscience/biochemistry.aspx

Notts is a decent uni and they want GCSE grade C. Bull**** ALert, Bull**** alert!!!!!

Learn or don't gibbo, we all kno w this basic shyte, you don't. Ignore us. What does everyone else know, anyway. You're right. Everyone else is wrong. Everyone is an idiot but you. What use is maths when dealing with numbers anyway?

Really dipsh*t, I think you'll find biomedical science at Nottingham Uni is totally and utterly different to Biochemistry and Imperial London you complete jobsworth.

Good research again muppet. Everyone is not an idiot, just you guys and your ridiculous betting techniques that dont even involve trading loooooooooooooooooool!!!

Nottingham decent.....please.

once again, your judgement under uncertainty is flawed: i pay premium charge at 40%.

Really! You can't even find your way around premium charge? Nice work mate lol.

Gibbo99, you really should'nt be so impertinent, these guys were trying to help you.  This is a perfect example of the old adage.  "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

a splendid riposte.

made my wedge for today and off to bed - I admire your steadfastness but honestly I think have a much better method requiring less stakes with far higher payouts. If you're doing well then good luck to you. If not, good luck but maybe listen a little to what i've said.

Also Shiraz, they weren't trying to help me whatsoever. They were simply arguing their corner when I questioned the point of betting on Murray at 1.19, albeit without much reasoning.

Gibbo, you are beyond help, that much has been established. The link I gave was to a biochemistry degree, in the school of biomedical sciences, at UoN. Imperial ask for B at GCSE. Don't believe me? Here's the link:

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ugprospectus/facultiesanddepartments/lifesciences/entryrequirements

Also, you used the word "jobsworth" improperly.

Now who's the ****?