A few large bets per year...

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.

opr

I have seen so many of your posts in the past that i felt came across as extremly condsending laced with an air of intellectual superiority.

Then i see your posts in this thread and I couldn't help laughing at your sheer lack of understanding of this subject and your failure to even see what people are trying to point out to you.

Opr

IrishMike

Who are you referring to opr?

opr

Sorry the OP

opr

cardshark202

op fails at life imo

hotspur

What we have learnt from this thread:
Poker players = clever other gamblers = not so much
Oh and we understand leveling

opr

Doyle Brunson wrote:

We are all degenerate gamblers, we are just lucky that we were able to find something we could beat.

Opr

Dodge

Mellor wrote: »

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

This thread amuses me greatly.

I'm constantly baffled at people's need to gamble on certain events.



There's four types of gamblers IMO

1) Those who bet small stakes on sports for a little interest. These people are generally well rounded and see the stakes as throwaway money. If they win, its great.

2) Serious (or semi -serious) gamblers who research the minutae of every event and place select bets with a firm staking policy. They understand not every bet will win but trust their judgement to come ahead in the longrun using any advantage thy can gain from bookies/betting sites

3) Sport traders. They stick to a tried and tested formula to maximise potential profits and generally specialise in certain markets. They usually don't care about the aesthetics of an event, and probably not even the result.

4) Fools who think they know it all.

A lot of 4s think they are 2s. At various stages I can be all four.

If the OP would like to post a screenshot of his account to prove his winning bet (and previous bets) I'm sure he'll be taken more seriously. Its easy enough to block out any personal information

Culchie

Dodge wrote: »

This thread amuses me greatly.

I'm constantly baffled at people's need to gamble on certain events.



There's four types of gamblers IMO

1) Those who bet small stakes on sports for a little interest. These people are generally well rounded and see the stakes as throwaway money. If they win, its great.

2) Serious (or semi -serious) gamblers who research the minutae of every event and place select bets with a firm staking policy. They understand not every bet will win but trust their judgement to come ahead in the longrun using any advantage thy can gain from bookies/betting sites

3) Sport traders. They stick to a tried and tested formula to maximise potential profits and generally specialise in certain markets. They usually don't care about the aesthetics of an event, and probably not even the result.

4) Fools who think they know it all.

A lot of 4s think they are 2s. At various stages I can be all four.

If the OP would like to post a screenshot of his account to prove his winning bet (and previous bets) I'm sure he'll be taken more seriously. Its easy enough to block out any personal information

Good Point

Here's my last 3 months .... not too busy but well ahead with my €4 unit stake ....got to give up this work craic.

Period: Last 3 HoursLast 6 HoursJust For TodayFrom YesterdayLast 7 daysLast 30 daysLast 3 Months Download to Spreadsheet
?


(relates to event settlement date)



(yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm) to


(yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm)








Golf: EUR214.12 | Horse Racing: EUR52.79 | Soccer: -EUR130.00 | Tennis: EUR8.45 Total P&L: EUR145.36


Golf Showing 1 - 7 of 7 markets

Market Start time Settled date Profit/loss (€)
Golf / Crowne Plaza Invit : Winner 22-May-08 13:30 25-May-08 23:02 -48.00
Golf / AT+T Classic : Winner 15-May-08 11:50 18-May-08 21:12 -40.64
Golf / Wachovia Championship : Winner 01-May-08 12:00 04-May-08 22:55 -36.00
Golf / Verizon Heritage : Winner 17-Apr-08 12:20 20-Apr-08 22:46 114.00
Golf / US Masters : Top 5 Finish 10-Apr-08 13:00 14-Apr-08 00:31 -3.00
Golf / US Masters : Winner 10-Apr-08 13:00 14-Apr-08 00:29 251.76
Golf / PODS Championship : Winner 06-Mar-08 12:00 09-Mar-08 22:16 -24.00

hotspur

As an interesting addendum I know from analysing internal data from a huge online bookies that those with greater skill at sports betting actually end up losing more money in the long run. As counterintuitive as that sounds the reality is that those who lose a much smaller percentage of their overall betting amounts lose more in absolute terms because they tend to bet bigger and stay around for longer.

The lesson being that it is incredibly difficult to beat the bookie's vigorish even if you are a skilled sports bettor. Most still make too many -EV bets, and their greater number of wins when they find thin +EV do not make up for the fact that they bet bigger and so lose more when they make -EV bets. This is a reality of the cold hard data.

wb

As an interesting addendum I know from analysing internal data from a huge online bookies that those with greater skill at sports betting actually end up losing more money in the long run. As counterintuitive as that sounds the reality is that those who lose a much smaller percentage of their overall betting amounts lose more in absolute terms because they tend to bet bigger and stay around for longer.

The lesson being that it is incredibly difficult to beat the bookie's vigorish even if you are a skilled sports bettor. Most still make too many -EV bets, and their greater number of wins when they find thin +EV do not make up for the fact that they bet bigger and so lose more when they make -EV bets. This is a reality of the cold hard data.

That's very interesting actually and I'd well believe it.

The fact that the bookies close winning accounts doesn't help either. I hate when the bookies moan about the exchanges when they have a policy of closing/limiting their own customers betting.