Punting - why value is the key

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I believe there to be none.............

I believe you are wrong
Neither of us can prove the other is incorrect, you might like to think you can by reeling off the law of large numbers speel but that speel doesn't take into account the chance that someone knows enough to overcome the 15% bookies gross profit margin through selective punting that's winner driven, not value driven.

I actually think the following post perfectly illustrates where you are coming from...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82620620

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

................

Powers often have huge priced specials on soccer, I am not the biggest soccer fan. I price then at Betfair lay prices + an additional 10%. If they are bigger than that I back them. I keep track of:

1. The price Powers offered
2. The price implied by Betfair lay prices
3. EV assuming 2 is correct
4. P&L assuming you have their max on and also you bet them all to win €200 (€200 as the lowest price I've ever seen offered is evs, and the max bet is usually €200)
..............

No where in that selection process is any knowledge on the subject you are having a bet on, yet you no doubt reckon that's a sound strategy.

So it's quite easy for all of us to see how you can't fathom how in depth knowledge could give someone more of an edge than the tactic above.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

Good, leave the adult thread to the adults

To the other posters, this probably sounds snide and childish. However I make no apologises due to the poster stating:

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

And

So you think a coin toss is like horse racing.

Both show 1 of the following:

1. the poster was responding having not even bothered to read my posts he was having a go at
2. They do not have any idea what I am talking about
3. They are deliberately trying to wind me up

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

No where in that selection process is any knowledge on the subject you are having a bet on, yet you no doubt reckon that's a sound strategy.

I didn't say I had "no doubt". There you go putting words in my mouth AGAIN

I have "very little" knowledge of the sport but a lot of knowledge of the actual market

Yes I believe the collective minds of those forming very liquid Betfair markets (+ a very generous safety margin) will result in me obtaining long run value. I believe this is sound or at least sound enough to be trialled against small % of my bank

The constant 10% add on results in higher EV being required from bets with lower expected strike rates. So far it is proving quite profitable and actual results are quite close to expected

RoverJames wrote: »

So it's quite easy for all of us to see how you can't fathom how in depth knowledge could give someone more of an edge than the tactic above.

it is quite difficult for me to fathom something that violates the law of large numbers

faoile@n

RoverJames wrote: »

That was an easy one.

Here's one for you, what price should Arsenel be in your opinion?

If you don't know you can use any future sporting event for illustration purposes once there's a market offer to use as comparison.

What does the price have to do with it? Did you not get the memo price and value are irrelevant? Its all about picking winners after all...

Now instead of dodging my perfectly legitimate question you kindly answer would you back Arsenal to beat West Ham at 1/100?

If not why not?

RichieLawlor

Honestly folks, CS is not even giving his opinion. He just stating mathematical facts.

It's not an argumentative subject.

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

I said I presume you realise a coin toss has nothing to do withh racing and you said wrong.

Where did I say this please?

The only statement you made that I said was incorrect was the following:

No both can't possibly be right as Colonel is completely dismissing Huntleys success and putting it down to 'fluke'.

RichieLawless wrote: »

Adults thread? There is your nasty streak again shown when your not having it your own way. Traits of a bully.

My own way? :rolleyes:

Colonel Sanders

faoile@n wrote: »

What does the price have to do with it? Did you not get the memo price and value are irrelevant? Its all about picking winners after all...

Now instead of dodging my perfectly legitimate question you kindly answer would you back Arsenal to beat West Ham at 1/100?

If not why not?

I asked the same question on the thread where the argument first erupted and was ignored

I asked the poster in question if he wasn't taking 1.01 why not as we'd identified the most likely winner

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawlor wrote: »

Honestly folks, CS is not even giving his opinion. He just stating mathematical facts.

It's not an argumentative subject.

wasting your time, I've tried and failed

ft9

Well you do get worked up if everyone is not agreeing with you. You are coming across as a bully imo on this thread. I have no interest in constantly arguing with you and reading your smart comments.

RichieLawlor

RichieLawless wrote: »

Well you do get worked up if everyone is not agreeing with you. You are coming across as a bully imo on this thread. I have no interest in constantly arguing with you and reading your smart comments.

It's NOT HIM you are disagreeing with. It's statistics you are arguing against.

It's like talking to a child

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

............ So far it is proving quite profitable and actual results are quite close to expected..............

If you put €200 on 1000 of those bets I'd expect a gross profit of €13,000 (ish)

You can tell us yourself how many of these qualifying bets you come across per annum, I'd be thinking the number is quite small

For sh1ts and giggles you can also tell us how correct or otherwise my estimate is

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

Well you do get worked up if everyone is not agreeing with you.

No I put out an OP, in which I outlined a viewpoint backed up by very rigourous mathematics

In response to posters who either say I am "wrong" or put up alternative theories (none of which have been backed by anything but conjecture) I respond stating why I have a problem with these viewpoints.

I have got angry once or twice tbh, mainly due to one poster who has continually put words in my mouth or on occasions where 20 posts have come and gone and we've merely gone round in circles

Any how I thought you were finished with this thread :rolleyes:

faoile@n

faoile@n wrote: »

What does the price have to do with it? ..........

All of my comments are based on the punter buying into the bookie being consistent.

No bookie will have Arsenal as a 1/100 shot, as they are largely consistent.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

............

I asked the poster in question if he wasn't taking 1.01 why not as we'd identified the most likely winner

Same applies to you old boy, we buy into the bookie being largely consistent, so when they offer you 10% over the betfair lay price you lash on as you are presuming you are getting value despite knowing nothing about the event you are betting on.

I'm a tad dissapointed to see I made you angry once or twice. I'll reiterate, I'm putting no words in your mouth, your speel is all here and both readable and quotable by all.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

..........

Any how I thought you were finished with this thread :rolleyes:

Sure we thought you were finished too but here you are regurgitating your college notes in strings of posts with 20 mins between them while (presumably) you consult an online or offline resource.

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

If you put €200 on 1000 of those bets I'd expect a gross profit of €13,000 (ish)

average EV (so far) is about 8-9% which is €16-18k on 1000 x €200

RoverJames wrote: »

You can tell us yourself how many of these qualifying bets you come across per annum, I'd be thinking the number is quite small

On average, one a week. Maybe slightly less when there's no football on (most of them are football but not all)

RoverJames wrote: »

For sh1ts and giggles you can also tell us how correct or otherwise my estimate is

So far (albeit on a small sample) actual RoI is slightly ahead of expected

If I can get 1000 x €200 bets on I'll report back

Huntley

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

I view them as "correct" as they are rigorous mathematical results

This is the crux of the problem, you are adamant that one cannot turn a positive RoI in the long run if they do not adhere to theories and equations.

Apart from my own personal methods, there are two logs on this site from myself that negate this. Your response being that;

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

If you have shown a +ive RoI over a long time period you have either
1. been lucky
2. have implicitly only backed what you deem the likeliest winner if you think the odds are in your favour (and have, on average, been proved correct)

Now, I have backed plenty of likely winners where the odds weren't necessarily in my favour. Provided it wasn't anything ridiculously short with a huge liability I was happy to make a bet on the likeliest winner. This then puts me into category 1 in your 'system' as being "lucky". That is a very cumbersome and general response, I would give far more credibility to the idea that other people can simply turn a positive RoI using different methods.

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

What I define the term "value" to be is not subjective. It is obtaining odds that under estimate the probability of an occurance.

How does one decipher value and obtain odds that "underestimate the probability of an occurrence"?

It is through reading and understanding race form enough to select the likeliest winner. Therefore I think that this aspect is far more fundamental as without the ability to do so then you cannot find the value. Taking ones ability to read form and select winners as (a) and value as (b), then one cannot have (b) without (a). This isn't difficult to understand and just because there is not a mathematical equation to support it doesn't make it incorrect. *Essentially my a and b model is actually an equation.

Nobody is disputing the mathematical facts, rather that they are too literal in this context and it is your opinion that they need to be applied for successful gambling.

That isn't contradictory, they were not established with the view of being synonymous with successful gambling. Others, who do not even share my view on the topic, can see its credibility as it is possible to turn a positive RoI without solely adhering to these "rigorous mathematical" equations.

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

No I put out an OP, in which I outlined a viewpoint backed up by very rigourous mathematics

In response to posters who either say I am "wrong" or put up alternative theories (none of which have been backed by anything but conjecture) I respond stating why I have a problem with these viewpoints.

I have got angry once or twice tbh, mainly due to one poster who has continually put words in my mouth or on occasions where 20 posts have come and gone and we've merely gone round in circles

Any how I thought you were finished with this thread :rolleyes:

I did say that, but came back to stand up for myself after your cheap shot.
When you are resorting to that smiley, it says it all.

Overthelast

Your being a little bit too dogmatic on reverting to your mathematical mantra.

The title states "Punting - Why Value is the Key".

I accept your well laid out fact based calculations why someone who makes a profit must be getting value in the long run.

However, I can see how "value" is not the key for someone selecting on form & making a relatively small # of bets each yr & turning a tasty profit. Without winners, value would become irrelevant - they would be broke relatively quickly if they kept backing value losers. As such, its secondary, an offshoot.

You accept that understanding your concepts is quite difficult for some yet your having a great deal of difficulty understanding other points of view.

"it is quite difficult for me to fathom something that violates the law of large numbers" - You've couched each reply to conform with your view of "value" punting - hence your having a great deal of difficulty understanding why value, rather than being key, may actually be of secondary importance.

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

average EV (so far) is about 8-9% which is €16-18k on 1000 x €200 ..........

Over how many bets?

ft9

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

wasting your time, I've tried and failed

/thread

Colonel Sanders

Huntley wrote: »

This is the crux of the problem, you are adamant that one cannot turn a positive RoI in the long run if they do not adhere to theories and equations.

I am adamant one cannot turn a +ive RoI in the long run unless your weighted EV is +ive. If you don't believe this you actually do have a problem with the law of large numbers, despite stating elsewhere you didn't

This is the mythical "mathematical fact" I have referred to over and over again, which you maintained didn't exist

Huntley wrote: »

Apart from my own personal methods, there are two logs on this site from myself that negate this

2 logs based on finite sample sizes do not equate to "the long run", why are you not getting this?

Huntley wrote: »

Now, I have backed plenty of likely winners where the odds weren't necessarily in my favour.

This is irrational to me, and I would have thought irrational to most people

Huntley wrote: »

This then puts me into category 1 in your 'system' as being "lucky".

Yes, this would make me assign a higher probability to option 1, luck

Huntley wrote: »

That is a very cumbersome and general response

It is a response, wait for it, backed up by rigourous mathematics.

Huntley wrote: »

I would give far more credibility to the idea that other people can simple turn a positive RoI using different methods.

IMO you are wrong to do so

Huntley wrote: »

How does one decipher value and obtain odds that "underestimate the probability of an occurrence"?

It is a subjective assessment (think we both actually agree on that). I have continually mentioned metrics that one can keep track of to see how they are faring over large number of bets

Huntley wrote: »

It is through reading and understanding race form enough to select the likeliest winner.

No it selecting the runner (who may or may not be the likeliest winner) that gives the bettor the most EV (or at least some +EV)

Huntley wrote: »

Therefore I think that this aspect is far more fundamental as without the ability to do so then you cannot find the value

So likeliest winner = value (or at least "best value"). I'm afraid I disagree if this is the case

Huntley wrote: »

Nobody is disputing the mathematical facts

you have done so repeatedly and are doing so again in this very post I m replying to

Huntley wrote: »

That isn't contradictory, they were not established with the view of being synonymous with successful gambling

It is contradictory. They were established to be applied to a sequence of random variables. A series of bets placed on uncertain outcomes can be thought of as a series of random variables. Whether the originator was a gambler, I don't know

Huntley wrote: »

Others, who do not even share my view on the topic, can see its credibility

It has no credibility in my view as it is based solely on conjecture

Huntley wrote: »

it is possible to turn a positive RoI without solely adhering to these "rigorous mathematical" equations

It is not possible to return a +ive RoI in the long run without obtaining prices that underestimate your selections chances

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

Over how many bets?

1000, as stated....

Colonel Sanders

Overthelast wrote: »

Your being a little bit too dogmatic on reverting to your mathematical mantra.

I disagree, I cannot accept something not rigourous as "fundamental"

Overthelast wrote: »

I accept your well laid out fact based calculations why someone who makes a profit must be getting value in the long run.

OK

Overthelast wrote: »

However, I can see how "value" is not the key for someone selecting on form & making a relatively small # of bets each yr & turning a tasty profit. Without winners, value would become irrelevant - they would be broke relatively quickly if they kept backing value losers. As such, its secondary, an offshoot.

Not being smart but is this not a contradiction?

as long as they are backing horses with a non-zero probability of winning in the long run actual strike rate approaches expected.

Some people are saying back winners and value will look after itself

I can rigourously state get value and winners will look after themselves

Overthelast wrote: »

You accept that understanding your concepts is quite difficult for some yet your having a great deal of difficulty understanding other points of view.

I cannot accept a view that:

1. Violates a mathematical rigouous idea
2. is backed u with mere conjecture

Overthelast wrote: »

your having a great deal of difficulty understanding why value, rather than being key, may actually be of secondary importance.

I am having difficultly seeing this, I thought my responses throughout this thread would have made that clear

Colonel Sanders

RichieLawless wrote: »

/thread

There is none so blind as those that will not see

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

average EV (so far) is about 8-9% which is €16-18k on 1000 x €200



On average, one a week............

RoverJames wrote: »

Over how many bets?

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

1000, as stated....

So you've been availing of these offers for 20 years?

I'll ask again, how many of these bets have you placed?

Colonel Sanders

RoverJames wrote: »

So you've been availing of these offers for 20 years?

I'll ask again, how many of these bets have you placed?

you quoted a post where I mentioned an EV of €16-18k. I was responding to that, it was in no way clear that you were asking how many I had actually placed

If you mean how many bets have I actually placed I would say 60-70. I don't have my spreadsheet to hand to give the exact figure

Colonel Sanders

Colonel Sanders wrote: »

you quoted a post where I mentioned an EV of €16-18k. I was responding to that, it was in no way clear that you were asking how many I had actually placed

If you mean how many bets have I actually placed I would say 60-70. I don't have my spreadsheet to hand to give the exact figure

I was querying the so far bit

9 out of 10 people would have known that imo

hucklebuck

RichieLawless wrote: »

I closed all my online accounts recently and the majority were money making accounts.

If you were that profitable why were you in Huntleys log looking for his selections?

While I had a look through there I could see Rover has posted a bit there too.

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

Colonel Sanders

anyhow my son is teething so will probably be awake on the hour tonight so I'm off to bed (with probability 1 )

hucklebuck

hucklebuck wrote: »

............

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

What are you suggesting?
Please do spell it out so we can laugh at what a silly chap you are making yourself out to be.

I'd say ft9 was in Huntley's thread as it was a great read, very insightful and had plenty of winners.

Not what you'd read too often around here

What sabbatical are you referring to btw?
Also it's clear from my posts I have no issue with the law of large numbers, when applied correctly. N/A with regard to selective punting as it's not throws of the dice we are talking about.

ft9

hucklebuck wrote: »

If you were that profitable why were you in Huntleys log looking for his selections?

While I had a look through there I could see Rover has posted a bit there too.

Interesting that the person who is on his second user account has two people arguing with the theory of large numbers while he took a sabbatical.

I was in Huntleys thread because he's proven to be successful, and I value his opinion, often he punts the same horse as me. Great minds and all that eh.
You think I wasn't profitable and that I made that up? Or would I not be allowed to look at a thread on the internet because my accounts were positive?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about a second user account as I've only ever had one. I changed my name as a joke alright, but it should be back to normal in the morning.