A few large bets per year...

AARRRGH

I've made a few 5k bets. Thank **** they all won.

There are obvious results, for example the Champions League final, under 2.5 goals is a near guaranteed result.

The odds on this are currently 1/2 on Paddy Power.

So you put 20k on this. That's nearly 10k guaranteed.

You wait a few months for another guaranteed game, for example, Man U at home against Sunderland.

You make about 4 bets per year.

Do you think it can be done?

ninebeanrows

Stupid to be honest.

There are no guarantees in gambling.

You do it for the craic and hope that a well judged *guess* comes off, because at the end of the day all it is is a guess.


Obviously if you have a very large bank there are methods that can make you say a 10% increase on your bank monthly, but this takes alot of effort, time and learning.

Most people are just looking to make a quick buck and have a larf.

Throwing 5k on an uncertainty like that is just careless and unless your very well off could not be fun, more likely it would be an extremely stressful event.

Culchie

dublindude wrote: »

I've made a few 5k bets. Thank **** they all won.

There are obvious results, for example the Champions League final, under 2.5 goals is a near guaranteed result.

The odds on this are currently 1/2 on Paddy Power.

So you put 20k on this. That's nearly 10k guaranteed.

You wait a few months for another guaranteed game, for example, Man U at home against Sunderland.

You make about 4 bets per year.

Do you think it can be done?

wtf?

Sure wasn't there 3 goals between them 2 weeks ago ffs .... hardly convincing 'cert' material.

Put your 5k in Rabodirect and get your 6% interest ....that's a cert.

Mellor

dublindude wrote: »

So you put 20k on this. That's nearly 10k guaranteed

Guaranteed???
I find your idea of a guarantee pretty funny.

Firstly, if i was to place a large belike that, it would on on pddy power or any bookies site.

I also think that the value is on the other side of that bet

Chucky the tree

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/4890624.stm


lolguaranteedaments

hotspur

Yes it can be done, people buy money all the time, and I used to myself. The truth is that it is still a long term game and you have to be taking the best of it odds wise. The absolute odds of a bet are not as important as you think, the value of it is. Doing 20-1 on shots every month is only a good idea if the true odds of these bets are under 20-1 on. Sometimes people get confused about this and just think "ah sure it's guaranteed" without reference to what they think are representative odds.

Whatever about the already laughed at notion of under 2.5 goals being guaranteed, you have to have a method of appraising the odds yourself and be better than the bookies are some of the time. What odds do you think under 2.5 goals should be, and how did you arrive at that? Until you can answer that then you are just not informed enough about what you are doing and are virtually guaranteed to lose in the long run.

Also, you don't get value from bookies in the Champions League final for God's sake.

You have a lot of learning to do about the nature of sports gambling profitably, right now you are probably making -EV bets most of the time.

Bluetonic

Culchie wrote: »

wtf?

Sure wasn't there 3 goals between them 2 weeks ago ffs .... hardly convincing 'cert' material.

That was a different match played under different circumstances.

Chelsea had to win that game, therefore the whole makeup of the game was completely different to the how the CL final will be played.

You are not comparing like with like. The ability to understand this at a more complex level is what distinguishes someone who understands where the value is in a market over someone who hasn't a clue.

redfan

goal prediction bets are nuts . man u v derby for example 1.nil in the primership .
anyways . i think the top 2 teams at home take a choice and do a single bet of approx 3/10 high stake . bottom 3 clubs. bound to fold against big teams.and get a pool of money to one side and use that for your gambling.
brother does this every year. hasnt failed yet.
but gambling can be a very dangerous thing . as we all know .
the bookie will almost always come out on top.

AdrianII

dublindude wrote: »

I've made a few 5k bets. Thank **** they all won.

There are obvious results, for example the Champions League final, under 2.5 goals is a near guaranteed result.

The odds on this are currently 1/2 on Paddy Power.

So you put 20k on this. That's nearly 10k guaranteed.

That is the most stupid thing i ever heard, here are the last 4 champions league final, all with 3 or more goals

2006/07 AC Milan 2 – 1 Liverpool FC
2005/06 FC Barcelona 2 – 1 Arsenal
2004/05 Liverpool FC 3 – 3 AC Milan
2003/04 FC Porto 3 – 0 AS Monaco FC

going by your maths you would be down 80K,

dont be a fool by taking a chance on a one off game, an early goal or a sending off could cost you big

AARRRGH

Eh, relax everyone, I was just throwing the idea out there!

Bluetonic wrote: »

That was a different match played under different circumstances.

Chelsea had to win that game, therefore the whole makeup of the game was completely different to the how the CL final will be played.

You are not comparing like with like. The ability to understand this at a more complex level is what distinguishes someone who understands where the value is in a market over someone who hasn't a clue.

Thank you. I also think people are simplifying here.

Mellor

hotspur wrote: »

Whatever about the already laughed at notion of under 2.5 goals being guaranteed, you have to have a method of appraising the odds yourself and be better than the bookies are some of the time. What odds do you think under 2.5 goals should be, and how did you arrive at that? Until you can answer that then you are just not informed enough about what you are doing and are virtually guaranteed to lose in the long run.

This is spot on, and its pretty much what I said. There is little value in CLF bets, but there is cetainly more value on the over 2.5 side. Even with bookies odds.

Bluetonic wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like. The ability to understand this at a more complex level is what distinguishes someone who understands where the value is in a market over someone who hasn't a clue.

I agree that it is a different match, and the the circumstances are different. But your suggestion that seeing that it is a different game is more complex that distingushing the value is ludacris. Its just down right wrong, simply because to distinguih the vlue you must clude the match conditions.

I firmly believe that the value is on the other side here, purely to the odds,
If I wasgoing to have a bet on the number of goals, i' probably go for 2 or goals at evens, if I was, I still don't think its value.

dublindude wrote: »

Eh, relax everyone, I was just throwing the idea out there!

Thank you. I also think people are simplifying here.

Why do you think people are simplifying it?
Its wrong down to the EV of the bet, thats hardly simple. If antthink i'd say you simplified it.

Bubs101

Pure and simple, there are no guarantees in gambling. If you bet like that you are heading for a fall

Culchie

Bluetonic wrote: »

That was a different match played under different circumstances.

Chelsea had to win that game, therefore the whole makeup of the game was completely different to the how the CL final will be played.

You are not comparing like with like. The ability to understand this at a more complex level is what distinguishes someone who understands where the value is in a market over someone who hasn't a clue.

Thanks, but I think I grasp this 'complex level' of thinking. I felt it was bordering on patronising, but hey, maybe I'm over sensitive.

Anyways

1999 2-1
2000 3-0
2001 1-1*
2002 1-2
2003 0-0*
2004 3-0
2005 3-3
2006 2-1
2007 2-1

2 of the last 9 champions league finals had more than 2.5 goals, so whether the game in question ends with less than 2.5 goals in 2008 it doesn't matter .... it will be agianst current form and recent history.

Taking this bet at 1/2 is stupidity of the highest degree .... whether you but a tenner on it, or ten grand on it.

cardshark202

Paddy Power says thanks to you dublindude

Mellor

Bubs101 wrote: »

Pure and simple, there are no guarantees in gambling. If you bet like that you are heading for a fall

thats true, guaranteed........wait a sec

AARRRGH

Mellor wrote: »

There is little value in CLF bets, but there is cetainly more value on the over 2.5 side.

In a Manu Chelsea final? Explain.

myflipflops

dublindude wrote: »

In a Manu Chelsea final? Explain.

Just spotted this thread. It has inspired me to post a proper one on the idea of value versus picking winners when i get the chance but for now I'll give my opinion on this.

Dublindude, your bet on under 2.5 golas in the United game is probably the most likely occurence (i think Mellor agrees with this). Mellor's statement that there is more value in backing the overs is based purely on the price. 1/2 is a chronically short price for the unders (a bet whose real price is probably 4/6 or 8/11). Quite simply, you are taking odds that are way worse than the actual chances of it happening.

The bookies have clearly gone very short on the under 2.5 goals so naturally, the price of the over goals becomes bigger. As such, the 6/4 you are getting on over 2.5 goals is actually the correct price (if it should be 4/6 unders the 6/4 is right for the overs). This all leads to the fact the backing the overs is way more value than the unders. Bookies will be delighted to take your bet safe in the knowledge that the price they are laying is great business for them. Bets like this are the reason they post great figures every year - the majority of their customers have no idea about value and frankly don't care.

The debate here is not (or at least should not) be about how many goals will be in the CL final (one for the soccer forum), it is simply about where the value in the market is and it is quite clearly in backing the overs.

Either way, best of look with the bet.

lolkelly

pwhite587 wrote: »

Just spotted this thread. It has inspired me to post a proper one on the idea of value versus picking winners when i get the chance but for now I'll give my opinion on this.

Dublindude, your bet on under 2.5 golas in the United game is probably the most likely occurence (i think Mellor agrees with this). Mellor's statement that there is more value in backing the overs is based purely on the price. 1/2 is a chronically short price for the unders (a bet whose real price is probably 4/6 or 8/11). Quite simply, you are taking odds that are way worse than the actual chances of it happening.

The bookies have clearly gone very short on the under 2.5 goals so naturally, the price of the over goals becomes bigger. As such, the 6/4 you are getting on over 2.5 goals is actually the correct price (if it should be 4/6 unders the 6/4 is right for the overs). This all leads to the fact the backing the overs is way more value than the unders. Bookies will be delighted to take your bet safe in the knowledge that the price they are laying is great business for them. Bets like this are the reason they post great figures every year - the majority of their customers have no idea about value and frankly don't care.

The debate here is not (or at least should not) be about how many goals will be in the CL final (one for the soccer forum), it is simply about where the value in the market is and it is quite clearly in backing the overs.

Either way, best of look with the bet.

Value was discussed on this forum a couple of weeks back (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055268591&page=1). Unfortunately the majority of people don’t see to get the fact that this is the crucial factor in making money from betting in the long term.

To the OP if you don’t understand the term value and you are placing 5k bets you are either extremely rich or extremely lucky.

myflipflops

lolkelly wrote: »

Value was discussed on this forum a couple of weeks back (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055268591&page=1). Unfortunately the majority of people don’t see to get the fact that this is the crucial factor in making money from betting in the long term.

To the OP if you don’t understand the term value and you are placing 5k bets you are either extremely rich or extremely lucky.

Thanks God i missed that discussion. I would have exploded.

maxi-twist

Yeah its a great idea, until you go for wales against fiji in the RWC and fiji win and you lose all the money u've made! That was a stupid bet tho, i hadnt done my hw.

hotspur

pwhite587 wrote: »

Thanks God i missed that discussion. I would have exploded.

I actually did and deserved a ban. Trolling has nothing on genuine ignorance.

kincsem

Try to get your head around the idea that the odds offered approximate the chance of the event happening.

AARRRGH

Of course I understand the concept of value, but if something is not going to happen, i.e. over 2.5 goals, the value means nothing.

I'm not a bad gambler. I used to work for a bookies. My account was up a few thousand. 99.9% of the accounts I saw were down.

I bet on what I think will happen. I don't let the odds influence my decision making. It is a system which has worked for me.

Note I only bet on the odd game. Results I think are as close to guaranteed as possible.

You can bet on the "value" tonight, over 2.5 goals, but the only people who are going to get value out of that are the bookies!

We'll find out in a few hours anyway

I'll happily apologise if there are more than 2.5 goals.

Mellor

dublindude wrote: »

Of course I understand the concept of value,

I don't mean to sound rude, my I don't think that you do.
I am basising this on the following

...but if something is not going to happen, i.e. over 2.5 goals, the value means nothing.
I bet on what I think will happen. I don't let the odds influence my decision making. It is a system which has worked for me.

Saying that over 2.5 won't happen is wrong. Very wrong, this is not the same as saying it probably won't* It might happen.
Not letting the odds affect your decision is also pretty bad gambling. Under 2.5 is more likely, but at a certain point the other side is a better bet.
Extremes are always better examples, say over 2.5 goals was 100/1 what would you choose?


*If it happens or not tonight has no implications on the value in this bet. Its a single bet and one side must win, too small a sample to prove anything

dsmythy

Left the game alone since I'd imagine the bookies would have their prices perfectly set for the occasion. I'd rather be on the over than under right now score as it is.

AARRRGH

And my winning continues.

Yep, I don't know what I'm doing.

AARRRGH

Mellor wrote: »

Extremes are always better examples, say over 2.5 goals was 100/1 what would you choose?

That's ridiculous.

I would not have bet on the game with those odds.

There is no point going for "value" if the value bet won't happen.

I consistently win, making a few large bets per year.

I'm sorry if that annoys you. That's not my intention.

Mellor

I already said that the result of the match has no bearing on weither you are right or wrong.
Still sounds like you don't understand value,
Value isn't the best price, its the best return based on chances of happening.

After seeing the match, you stand by your original comments that under 2.5 goals was "guaranteed". I doubt it.
It was lucky to be only 2. I'd say it was a nervous second half for you.

There is no point going for "value" if the value bet won't happen

Won't happen?
A little results based thinking there I feel. Utd got an early goal, and were unlucky not to make it two. Chelsea hit the post in the second half, and a goal could of poped up anywhere.

Based on the price of 1/2 I think that under 2.5 Goals was a bad bet.

I think that my bet of 2 or 3 goals at evens is far better due to the price.

dsmythy

dublindude wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

I would not have bet on the game with those odds.

There is no point going for "value" if the value bet won't happen.

I consistently win, making a few large bets per year.

I'm sorry if that annoys you. That's not my intention.

I don't think anyone would of came in gloating over a loss if it went the other way. The way the game went it didn't feel like it was certain to happen. (The initial reason for people responding to your original post the way they did).

Nevertheless you won this one. Well done. Tell us your next one whenever it may be.

AARRRGH

Well, I said I would come back and apologise if I was wrong, so I reckon it's ok to come and gloat cause I won

I'll create a new topic when my next psycho bet comes around.

Mellor

well congrats on the win,
if you keep winning i'd be happy to come along for the ride,
Celtic for SPL?

AARRRGH

Mellor wrote: »

I already said that the result of the match has no bearing on weither you are right or wrong.
Still sounds like you don't understand value,
Value isn't the best price, its the best return based on chances of happening.

This is where you are wrong.

"Value" means nothing if you lose your bet.

What's important is the bet which will win.

Mellor wrote: »

After seeing the match, you stand by your original comments that under 2.5 goals was "guaranteed". I doubt it.
It was lucky to be only 2. I'd say it was a nervous second half for you.

Sure, it was a nervous second half, but my analysis was right.

Mellor wrote: »

A little results based thinking there I feel. Utd got an early goal, and were unlucky not to make it two. Chelsea hit the post in the second half, and a goal could of poped up anywhere.

Sure a plane could have crashed into the stadium.

The result is what matters.

Mellor wrote: »

Based on the price of 1/2 I think that under 2.5 Goals was a bad bet.

A bad bet? The bet I won was a bad bet? LOL

AARRRGH

Mellor wrote: »

well congrats on the win,
if you keep winning i'd be happy to come along for the ride,
Celtic for SPL?

I have no interest in that bet.

I'll be sure to let you know what my next "guaranteed win" comes along. :pac: :pac:

ArmaniJeanss

dublindude wrote: »

"Value" means nothing if you lose your bet.

What's important is the bet which will win.

You are quite right, and the sooner the muppets who espouse this peculiar notion of value come around to the correct way of thinking then the sooner they might start winning.

P.S. You should take up online poker.

newestUser

dublindude wrote: »

This is where you are wrong.

"Value" means nothing if you lose your bet.

What's important is the bet which will win.



Sure, it was a nervous second half, but my analysis was right.

A bad bet? The bet I won was a bad bet? LOL

You've had a long streak of success. I'll point you in the direction of this (it's my own website, sorry for the pimpage...)

http://www.studysoccer.com/variance.php

Value (or expectation, to use the correct mathematical term) means *everything* in sports betting, especially when you have to beat the massive handicap imposed upon you by the bookies overround...

http://www.studysoccer.com/helpOverround.php

You say that out of a large number of punters you encountered while working in a bookies, you were the only one (or one of very few) who was up money. So what? If you can't explain why that is, ie how you're negating the bookies overround and making money, one can only assume you're just lucky. After how many bets were you up money? Use this tool to generate batches of bets for that number at random.

http://www.studysoccer.com/testChance.php

Do it long enough, and eventually you'll find a batch of totally random bets which make you money. You mightn't have to wait long, in the first page I linked to, out of 10 batches of 300 random bets, 2 of the batches result in a profit, purely by luck and for no other reason.

Stop winding people up. I think you're trolling.

Mellor

dublindude wrote: »

This is where you are wrong.

"Value" means nothing if you lose your bet.

What's important is the bet which will win.

no it isn't

Sure, it was a nervous second half, but my analysis was right.

Your analysis. No it wasn't, not even close.
You said less than two goals were guaranteed, I wonder if you still felt it was guaranteed at any point in the match (bar the last few minutes)

Sure a plane could have crashed into the stadium.

The result is what matters.

Not to me, or any gamber with any sort of understanding.

A bad bet? The bet I won was a bad bet? LOL

Yeap



If I take odds of 4/1 that I can roll a 6 with a dice, is it obviously a bad bet.
If it hits, it doesn't become a good bet




I'm just thinking, your most likely taking the piss,

telecaster

dublindude, I would personally like to lay every bet you care to make for the forseeable future. Feel free to pm me and we can arrange this, or alternatively post your selections here and I will lay them on betfair at the best market price.

Culchie

Well done on your win, if you put down the bet.

However, your gloating is based on a results based thinking.

It is like taking a bet at 4/6 on for tossing a coin ten times, and you picking 'heads'.

The actual chances are 50/50 based over a period of time. Just because you decided to take a punt at 4/6 and you won doesn't make it a smart bet, it's results based thinking.....and it's -EV.

How that game finished 1-1 was nothing to do with your fantastic analysis, as Champion Leagues finals goes, it was end to end stuff, double saves by keepers, woodwork hit twice etc etc ....

Anyways well done on your win, but it doesn't make it shrewd gambling. If you are ignoring that then that's your own choice.

Have a good luck at this thread in the cold light of day, and genuinely ask yourself if you are as 'shrewd' as you think you are.

Your own admission of 'a few big bets a year' means that your sample base of results is small. You'll die a financial death in the mid to long term.

Collie D

Going to sit on the fence on this one. There is a bit of a "value price" v "more likely outcome" argument developing on this board lately. That's good, the Gambling forum should be about dicussing systems, value, etc. as well as tipping.

I think what people need to point out is just because they see the over 2.5 goals as the value, doesn't necessarily mean backing it. ie Under 2.5 goals was the most likely outcome but the price was a bit too ckinny for most people's liking and didn't properly represent the true likelihood. Should really be a mixture of what you think will win at a decent price

Everyone has their own method..I try and combine the two ie I wouldn't bet on the overs just because it was EV because I thought the unders were more likely...if however as Mellor suggested the odds were 100/1 then I'd be having a few quid, although in fairness who wouldn't.

Both sides have their points in this argument.

bohsman

stop tapping the aquarium people, if someone doesnt want to learn leave them off, odds are going to get worse for everyone if everyone learns some basics.

Thats the only conclusion I can come to anyway, I go on tilt everytime I read this forum.

Collie D

bohsman wrote: »

stop tapping the aquarium people, if someone doesnt want to learn leave them off, odds are going to get worse for everyone if everyone learns some basics.

Thats the only conclusion I can come to anyway, I go on tilt everytime I read this forum.

Someone on this forum has a good sig along those lines.

Something like "the many must lose in order for the few to win"

wb

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You are quite right, and the sooner the muppets who espouse this peculiar notion of value come around to the correct way of thinking then the sooner they might start winning.

P.S. You should take up online poker.

Using that 'logic', no-one would ever back a high priced selection and all of our bets would be on odds-on 'good things'. Last year, the highest price I won on was 219/1 (tipped on letsbet before the race). If I had of subscribed to the 'only bet sure things' argument, I would have never placed the bet. At 219/1, the horse certainly did not have the best chance of winning - However, he was overpriced in my opinion (should have been around 20/1 if you ask me), and funny things can and do happen in sport allowing the value bets to win sometimes. So called upsets happen so often in sport. A friend of mine is an on-course layer, and nearly all of his income comes from people betting on 'good things' with no sense of what the real price of a horse should be. He said that he'll stick 5/4 up on a horse he reckons should be 6/4 and people will still take it because of your logic. He may lose sometimes, but over time he is the one laughing all the way to the bank.

Certain people need regular wins to boost their ego, and can't handle a string of losers in a row. That's why they have to back short priced selections as they'll have plenty of winning bets. In their own mind, they may be winning but I'd like to see their P&L spreadsheets (that's if they bother recording their bets) and I doubt that many 'good thing' backers are coming out with a profit.

Mellor

Collie D wrote: »

Going to sit on the fence on this one. There is a bit of a "value price" v "more likely outcome" argument developing on this board lately. That's good, the Gambling forum should be about dicussing systems, value, etc. as well as tipping.

I think what people need to point out is just because they see the over 2.5 goals as the value, doesn't necessarily mean backing it. ie Under 2.5 goals was the most likely outcome but the price was a bit too ckinny for most people's liking and didn't properly represent the true likelihood. Should really be a mixture of what you think will win at a decent price

Everyone has their own method..I try and combine the two ie I wouldn't bet on the overs just because it was EV because I thought the unders were more likely...if however as Mellor suggested the odds were 100/1 then I'd be having a few quid, although in fairness who wouldn't.

Both sides have their points in this argument.

actually, I agree with bohsman,
shouldn't tap the tank, the more bad bets places, the more value available

Mellor

wb wrote: »

Using that 'logic', no-one would ever back a high priced selection and all of our bets would be on odds-on 'good things'.

lol, read between the lines in future

wb

Mellor wrote: »

lol, read between the lines in future

??

Collie D

wb wrote: »

??

I was going to post the same thing when he quoted my post. Too early fot you, Mellor? Come on, explain yourself, you're confusing us

myflipflops

Firstly, well done on the win. Whatever my opinion on the bet, I'm happy you won.

There is no point in continuing the debate as i think everything has been said already and you aren't going to change your mind. Ignoring the more patronizing posts, there has been some good advice on this thread. I think Mellor for one has written a lot of sense.

**By the by, just to confrim, when i said that i though backing the overs was the value, i certainly didn't think that it was a good bet or was i advising anyone backing it. It simply was the better value of the two. Any bets on the main markets n the Champions league final are pure punts.

Mellor

Collie D wrote: »

I was going to post the same thing when he quoted my post. Too early fot you, Mellor? Come on, explain yourself, you're confusing us

When I quoted you I had a response saying that Value doesn't mean best price.
Its not a case of "likely to happen vrs value price". Thats not the issue, and some people who "understand" value (or think they do) use it this way. They bet on the longer price because they will win more, that is not finding the value, it is equally as bad as better the short odds, possibably worse.

Some of the "anti-value" posters appear to think this is the case, and fob it off by saying to each their own etc.

Value as nothing to do with the long price, and could easily be the shortest bet in a field.


I then deleted the rply replacing it with, "no tappa da tanka"


As for read between the lines in my other post, I would of thought that was obvious

zuutroy

Oh God, it's happening again.

IrishMike

Mellor wrote: »

When I quoted you I had a response saying that Value doesn't mean best price.
Its not a case of "likely to happen vrs value price". Thats not the issue, and some people who "understand" value (or think they do) use it this way. They bet on the longer price because they will win more, that is not finding the value, it is equally as bad as better the short odds, possibably worse.

Some of the "anti-value" posters appear to think this is the case, and fob it off by saying to each their own etc.

Value as nothing to do with the long price, and could easily be the shortest bet in a field.


I then deleted the rply replacing it with, "no tappa da tanka"


As for read between the lines in my other post, I would of thought that was obvious

Good post.
I for one had an issue with this concept of "value".
For me it was badly explained and the conclusion i came to was that it meant
betting based on the best value for odds regardless of what you actually
thought was going to happen.
This is obviously not the case and what people are saying, is that value
is betting on what you think the outcome is combined with odds you think
fairly reflect this outcome.
If you think the odds are poor but the bet is good then this is not a value bet
and vice versa.
Value is not some obscure and vague thing which people seem to explain it
as, in a nutshell it means not betting on "sure things" if the odds are not
good enough.
The vast majority of people use the concept of value but they dont realise it.
I spent 4 pages of a thread arguing this point, largely due to the fact that
the term was just misinterpreted due to it being badly explained.

Seeing some element of value in bets does not make you a good gambler per se
everyone does it to some extent. It can however make you a profitable gambler
in the long run.
Notice i said can, as this is still gambling and even the best researched systems
can fail at some point

Collie D

IrishMike wrote: »

Good post.
I for one had an issue with this concept of "value".
For me it was badly explained and the conclusion i came to was that it meant
betting based on the best value for odds regardless of what you actually
thought was going to happen.
This is obviously not the case and what people are saying, is that value
is betting on what you think the outcome is combined with odds you think
fairly reflect this outcome.
If you think the odds are poor but the bet is good then this is not a value bet
and vice versa.
Value is not some obscure and vague thing which people seem to explain it
as, in a nutshell it means not betting on "sure things" if the odds are not
good enough.
The vast majority of people use the concept of value but they dont realise it.
I spent 4 pages of a thread arguing this point, largely due to the fact that
the term was just misinterpreted due to it being badly explained.

Seeing some element of value in bets does not make you a good gambler per se
everyone does it to some extent. It can however make you a profitable gambler
in the long run.
Notice i said can, as this is still gambling and even the best researched systems
can fail at some point

That's what I said but Mellor misinterprested me. Now, I am confused.