I think the internet is going to eliminate a typical punter's ability to make money.

SuperInfinity

The reason is because it'll be so easy to track individual bets and track the best performing punters in the world. Instead of a couple of analysts making up the odds on the spot, they'll have the ability to get the people who really know.

betfair won't be that better off. The best-performing punters will just pour more and more money into squeezing out the maximum profits from it. While years ago you might have had a decent chance of coming out better off after a bet, not anymore.

All they have to do is for each particular bet see how the best-performing, most elite punters are betting for it. If they are all betting a certain way, then the odds can be adjusted quickly and automatically. If they are betting in ways that contradict each other, then the bets are about right. They could treat the other bets as essentially "random" bets that will over the long term gain them money on average, the math works out trust me.

The only possible flaw I could see to this system, would be if the elite punters knew they were elite and could speak to other elite punters, and they also had another "ordinary" account. That way they could orchestrate a big shift in odds by using their elite accounts and using their ordinary accounts to bet as much as they could the opposite way at the artficially long odds. However in practice, this seems unlikely and it could only be done once or twice before the bookmakers saw it, they could refine their system to avoid it or avoid losing much money on if it ever occurred.

In betfair, you're not actually betting against the other average punters out there. You're betting against the weighted opinion of other punters of themselves. Suppose you're an elite punter, you're of the top 0.01% of punters out there. Then you're going to go onto betfair and put as much money as you possibly can on the bets you know are good ones. All of the odds will be adjusted to reflect your bets. So again, you're betting against the most elite punters in the world. Or 80% against the most elite big money punters, and 20% against (the majority) other ordinary punters.

So as a result, I think in the future all of the odds of big events will be pretty much exactly spot on, better than any analyst could ever predict. So unless you're one of the best punters in the world there will be no way to see a "good bet" in a big event, because if there was... then someone else out there would have already bet thousands on it.

mark renton

So basically you are saying bookies will put up a book based on who is backing rather than what chances they evaluate?

coughlan08

mate will all respect your only after highlighting 1 of many ways the bookies evaluate their odds.
i think your too focused on one aspect and therefore giving a negative view on the aspect of value betting,there is always value to be had,e.g an average bloke you knows/insight info about a horse/loi game etc is going to know a lot more info than the top .01% punter as the bet is a "niche"..

kodbox had insight info about a sporting fingal game,odds 4/6, where really they should of been much shorter.a lot of people made a nice few bob off of that particluar bet..score 2-0;)

mark renton

Also 99% of the time it doesnt matter who puts the bet on rather than the amount staked that determines the price - so whether its JP Mc Manus putting 20k on or couglan08 putting it on it can be pretty irrelevant

no disrespect coughlan

x PyRo

At the end of the day it's just maths and percentages, Nothing else. Money pushes the price down, Not individuals.

coughlan08

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The reason is because it'll be so easy to track individual bets and track the best performing punters in the world. .

if it doesnt matter 99% of the time then why would this point be valid.
curious as your kinda contradicting yourself.
no disrespect either.just a chat...;)

SuperInfinity

john47832 wrote: »

So basically you are saying bookies will put up a book based on who is backing rather than what chances they evaluate?

Yes, they will just copy the best-performing punters. By copying the best-performing punters, it means you would have to beat both the bookies' cut and the best-performing punters to make a profit.

coughlan08 wrote: »

mate will all respect your only after highlighting 1 of many ways the bookies evaluate their odds.
i think your too focused on one aspect and therefore giving a negative view on the aspect of value betting,there is always value to be had,e.g an average bloke you knows/insight info about a horse/loi game etc is going to know a lot more info than the top .01% punter as the bet is a "niche"..

kodbox had insight info about a sporting fingal game,odds 4/6, where really they should of been much shorter.a lot of people made a nice few bob off of that particluar bet..score 2-0;)

I take your points, but for the big sporting events I think they can still refine their systems. I doubt the whole system changed overnight, knowing the laziness and general incompetency of people... but they will follow the good bets. It's also like a game of cat and mouse with the "systems" people are creating out there, the bets system constantly refined, so for the big sporting events it'll be harder if not impossible to find a good bet.

mark renton

not my post dude - btw i was calculating teh 1% based on the eyebrow raising factor of who does put the bet on, but overall calculation will always be based on amount rather than person

SuperInfinity

coughlan08 wrote: »

if it doesnt matter 99% of the time then why would this point be valid.
curious as your kinda contradicting yourself.
no disrespect either.just a chat...;)

errr.... that was john47832 who said that. I wouldn't say that at all. I told people that the math works out if they are betting and have no idea what they're betting about.... the amount of people betting a certain way should have nothing to do with the price if they're essentially random bets.

coughlan08

oh ya sorry,
well both of ye are disagreeing with eachother so,;)
whos right..

mark renton

right? ahh yes that would be me

btw - my first post was a question - denoted by the question mark at the end of the sentence a small but critical part

SuperInfinity

john47832 wrote: »

right? ahh yes that would be me

Nah, it's me that's right. The way the "mugs" bet is irrelevant to what the price should be. The mugs might bet on England winning all their matches in the world cup. The mugs might have some other faulty betting patterns based on faulty reasoning. The price shouldn't be changed according to them, only according to the best-performing punters. Even if the bookies lost money over this once (england win a big match), over the long term they would gain it because their odds were correct (england barely get through and get the **** beaten out of them in the second round).

john47832 wrote: »

btw - my first post was a question - denoted by the question mark at the end of the sentence a small but critical part

And I answered that question...

mark renton

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Nah, it's me that's right. The way the "mugs" bet is irrelevant to what the price should be. The mugs might bet on England winning all their matches in the world cup. The mugs might have some other faulty betting patterns based on faulty reasoning. The price shouldn't be changed according to them, only according to the best-performing punters. Even if the bookies lost money over this once (england win a big match), over the long term they would gain it because their odds were correct (england barely get through and get the **** beaten out of them in the second round).

"Mugs" is a little disrespectful to punters

in the England case you pointed out everyone knew it was patriotic money being placed on, where the starting price and subsequent price was ridiculous - thus a perfect example of relevance, patriotic money is still money and the books have to be balanced accordingly

SuperInfinity wrote: »

And I answered that question...

yes I know - that was for coughlan who I feel thought it was a statement

very interesting topic

Verance

Good discussion.

The markets have got a lot more accurate in recent years (a lot) but there is still value to be found. I think the markets will continue to get closer to the true odds but there should still be plenty of value to be found in the future.

If only 1% of punters are doing well and spotting the value, 99% will be doing it differently. I think when the bookies are setting the markets they know that some prices are incorrect. They do this because they know the mug punters will back some teams/horses regardless of price so they will build up liabilities on these. Presumably it'd be hard for the 1% of in-the-know punters to have more money on than the other 99%, especially with the restricted accounts of the pro punters.

Btw most pros have teams of people to back in the shops as it's so hard to get a bet on online. So, keep the faith, it's still possible to make it pay

El Horseboxo

I reckon those that are really clearing up in the betting world never touch an online bet. A mate of mine who is a full time gambler has never placed a bet online and he is in the 6 figures when it comes to profit. He drives all over Dublin trying to get his money on and wears hats and all that jazz going up to the counter to try look less recognizable. I've even put a few on for him in places he felt he would jeopardize his custom. My point being that there are always going to be big time punters that are untraceable.