gambling strategies - Help please

IrishMike

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The attitude displayed in your posts here is quite frankly the biggest reason why firms like PPP and Boyles are expanding rapidly in this country.

Could you please take up poker aswell?

I have no problem being wrong lads so could someone tell me the error of my ways?
People are saying that even if you know someone should win an event the lay is better as the risk/return ratio is better.
That to me is complete an utter bull****.
If United are playing fulham tomorrow, fulham have only 10 first choice
players and the tea lady is in goals, united have scored 15 goals in 3 matchs
but are only 1-5 while fulham are 25-1 you are honestly telling me that you
would back fulham as the risk/reward is better?


I know thats an extreme example but lets look at the masters which was mentioned earlier.
Can someone please give me a metric to give me a price where woods would be considered a good price?
Would it be 2-1? Would it be 3-1?
What makes one not worth it but the next price worth it?
What im saying is that its completely subjective.
As a result backing/laying someone because they are not the right price is as scientific as randomly picking the winner.

ArmaniJeanss

lolkelly wrote: »

Also, you make reference to stats and form for football matches, but again no reference to price and value, which are the only way to win money from gambling in the long term. For example in the upcoming Masters i think Woods will win it, but 11/10 is too low a price IMO....As a result i will be laying woods as i believe this represents value.

IrishMike, Prendyy, JamesHayes and a few others.
You need to read this and keep reading it until you understand it.
Only then will you have any chance of not being a long-term loser at gambling. At the moment you are fooling yourselves.

Sorry for being harsh, but on this board hard cash is involved so theres no point in mollycoddling.

ArmaniJeanss

IrishMike wrote: »

I have no problem being wrong lads so could someone tell me the error of my ways?
People are saying that even if you know someone should win an event the lay is better as the risk/return ratio is better.
That to me is complete an utter bull****.
If United are playing fulham tomorrow, fulham have only 10 first choice
players and the tea lady is in goals, united have scored 15 goals in 3 matchs
but are only 1-5 while fulham are 25-1 you are honestly telling me that you
would back fulham as the risk/reward is better?

Its simple. There is still a price at which Fulham become the value even in this scenario. If you believe they have a 1 in 100 chance of winning but the bookies go 150/1 then you back Fulham.
Is this really that difficult a concept?.


Edit. By the way if Fulham were 25/1 then MUFC would be far shorter than 1/5, you should really give examples with books around the 107% mark to be realistic.

IrishMike

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its simple. There is still a price at which Fulham become the value even in this scenario. If you believe they have a 1 in 100 chance of winning but the bookies go 150/1 then you back Fulham.
Is this really that difficult a concept?.

Not difficult at all, so no need to be so condescending.
The problem i have with "proper gambling" as ye seem to think it is, is how
do ye profitable gamblers determine what the correct price is?

If you can tell me that then ye obviously are a lot better than any of us meer
plebs who use sentiment and form to make gut decisions. :cool:

Pj!

IrishMike wrote: »

Not difficult at all, so no need to be so condescending.
The problem i have with "proper gambling" as ye seem to think it is, is how
do ye profitable gamblers determine what the correct price is?

If you can tell me that then ye obviously are a lot better than any of us meer
plebs who use sentiment and form to make gut decisions. :cool:

Determining what the best price is is up to you. This is what its all about. The better you are at it, the more money you'll make. Form is obviously going to come into it, but at the end of the day form is nothing compared to value.

ArmaniJeanss

IrishMike wrote: »

Not difficult at all, so no need to be so condescending.
The problem i have with "proper gambling" as ye seem to think it is, is how
do ye profitable gamblers determine what the correct price is?

If you can tell me that then ye obviously are a lot better than any of us meer
plebs who use sentiment and form to make gut decisions. :cool:

Earlier you said

IrishMike wrote:

Only way of knowing is to check the result after the game.
Making money from gambling in the long run has as much to do with luck
as it does being informed, saying a price is good or bad value can at times
be extremely subjective.

which is basically results orientated thinking. The result has effectively nothing to do with the correctness of a bet.

I can't really explain to you how to determine the correct price, it requires patience trial-and-error etc.
One think most people do wrong is starting with the bookies prices, and seeing what they like there.

As an experiment you should do it the opposite way, start with your own prices.

Price up every match in the EPL next weekend to 100% before you look at the bookies prices and see how many you disagree with (your price is bigger than theirs). Back (or theoretically back) each of these occurences.

See how you get on, learn from those you get majorly wrong, keep doing it until you have confidence that your prices are correct.
Good luck.
AJs.

IrishMike

Forky wrote: »

Determining what the best price is is up to you. This is what its all about. The better you are at it, the more money you'll make. Form is obviously going to come into it, but at the end of the day form is nothing compared to value.

Ye are saying that to be a good and profitable gambler you need to be able to
spot value, only problem is that ye cant quantify what makes good value.
Value of a team is competely subjective.
Thats my original damn point :rolleyes:
Whether you make money in the long run or the short run comprises of two
factors - good selecting and more than a little bit of luck.
If ye can point out that this is not true then im converted.
Otherwise ill hang on to my current belief that its easy to be arrogant and
condescending and pick holes in someone elses bets.
Hows about proving how ye make money with some tips rather than trolling?

zuutroy

IrishMike wrote: »

Whether you make money in the long run or the short run comprises of two
factors - good selecting and more than a little bit of luck.

The thing about the long run is it completely factors out luck, and you're left with the skilled gambler in profit, and the unskilled gambler in loss.

lolkelly

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Earlier you said


which is basically results orientated thinking. The result has effectively nothing to do with the correctness of a bet.

I can't really explain to you how to determine the correct price, it requires patience trial-and-error etc.
One think most people do wrong is starting with the bookies prices, and seeing what they like there.

As an experiment you should do it the opposite way, start with your own prices.

Price up every match in the EPL next weekend to 100% before you look at the bookies prices and see how many you disagree with (your price is bigger than theirs). Back (or theoretically back) each of these occurences.

See how you get on, learn from those you get majorly wrong, keep doing it until you have confidence that your prices are correct.
Good luck.
AJs.

Exactly, If i was pricing up the masters i would be 7/4 Woods and 2/5 the field. As a result, laying woods IMO represents value. as already stated the better I am at pricing events, the better I am at spotting value, and hence the more profit I will make in the long term.

IrishMike

zuutroy wrote: »

The thing about the long run is it completely factors out luck, and you're left with the skilled gambler in profit, and the unskilled gambler in loss.

I am persuming that i am no doubt considered by you as a lucky gambler?
Just to check i had a look at my paddypower account.
From 27/6/07 to 07/04/08 i have deposited 8003.11 in 101 deposits to my paddypower online account.
In that time i have won 17212.83.
Not bad for someone who obviously hasnt got a clue what he is doing.
That took me 23 mins of my life i will never get back to calculate by the way!
For someone who gambles as a hobby and to make watching saturday
football and the odd Gaa match more enjoyable then its not that bad going.

To me that reinforces my previous argument that this magic trait "value"
is about as relevant as what im referring to as luck.
If united are playing and i feel they are going to win the fact that they are
8/13 or 8/11 means shag all. The price they are does not make them
more or less likely to win, it only changes the risk payout.
You people obviously have strict and rigid rules regarding this
But dont go telling me because ye do ye have some magic formula developed
which makes ye infallible.
Arrogance and gambling are a really good way to set yourselves up for a fall!

zuutroy

IrishMike wrote: »

I am persuming that i am no doubt considered by you as a lucky gambler?
Just to check i had a look at my paddypower account.
From 27/6/07 to 07/04/08 i have deposited 8003.11 in 101 deposits to my paddypower online account.
In that time i have won 17212.83.
Not bad for someone who obviously hasnt got a clue what he is doing.
That took me 23 mins of my life i will never get back to calculate by the way!
For someone who gambles as a hobby and to make watching saturday
football and the odd Gaa match more enjoyable then its not that bad going.

To me that reinforces my previous argument that this magic trait "value"
is about as relevant as what im referring to as luck.
If united are playing and i feel they are going to win the fact that they are
8/13 or 8/11 means shag all. The price they are does not make them
more or less likely to win, it only changes the risk payout.
You people obviously have strict and rigid rules regarding this
But dont go telling me because ye do ye have some magic formula developed
which makes ye infallible.
Arrogance and gambling are a really good way to set yourselves up for a fall!

If you bet on a team because you think that they're going to win and don't care what odds you're being offered, and you're still in profit, then yes you're riding a wave of good variance. That is undeniable. Are you trying to say that every professional or serious gambler out there is wrong and that they should be betting on who they think is going to win? Would you bet on Denman in the Gold Cup if he was 1/20? Can you explain your reasoning why/why not?

By the way I never bet on Sports because I haven't got the patience to develop the skills required to be a winning punter,so I'm not coming at this from an 'I'm a big condescending winner' angle.

IrishMike

zuutroy wrote: »

If you bet on a team because you think that they're going to win and don't care what odds you're being offered, and you're still in profit, then yes you're riding a wave of good variance. That is undeniable. Are you trying to say that every professional or serious gambler out there is wrong and that they should be betting on who they think is going to win? Would you bet on Denman in the Gold Cup if he was 1/20? Can you explain your reasoning why/why not?

By the way I never bet on Sports because I haven't got the patience to develop the skills required to be a winning punter,so I'm not coming at this from an 'I'm a big condescending winner' angle.

Ok first off you never bet on sports yet you are picking apart my betting strategy and that of others? :rolleyes:
Zuutroy you may aswell be giving me advice about driving after reading a rules of the road book.
Anyway ......
No i wouldnt back Denman as i know nothing about horses.
Second i didnt say i completely disregard price did i?
I said that because i cant get the exact price doesnt meen i wont place a bet.
My problem is with the previous "informed gamblers" who are saying that
despite thinking woods will win the masters that laying him is better value.
How on earth can not backing the outcome you think most likely be the basis
for a betting system?
It that not a complete paradox?
When i bet i look at what i think will happen then get a price.
I dont make up my own prices and then back or lay the team depending
on whether paddypower or boylesports prices are higher or lower.
Thats downright stupid.
The arrogance of the people in this thread to pick apart systems when they
cant see the gaping holes in their own systems is mindboggling.
Just because "value" isnt incorporated the way ye incorporate it makes our
systems idiotic even if they are profitable?
Get down off those high horses lads before ye hurt yourselves

lolkelly

IrishMike wrote: »

I am persuming that i am no doubt considered by you as a lucky gambler?
Just to check i had a look at my paddypower account.
From 27/6/07 to 07/04/08 i have deposited 8003.11 in 101 deposits to my paddypower online account.
In that time i have won 17212.83.!

1. This has nothing to do with our overall argument.
2. I would consider this after posting.

ArmaniJeanss

IrishMike wrote: »

I dont make up my own prices and then back or lay the team depending
on whether paddypower or boylesports prices are higher or lower.
Thats downright stupid.

Its effectively how every professional winning sportsbettor in the world does it. But you dismiss it as 'downright stupid'. Brilliant.

IrishMike

lolkelly wrote: »

We have no proof that James has made hes bank grow by this amount!

lolkelly wrote: »

1. This has nothing to do with our overall argument.

My post was in response to your helpful post.

lolkelly wrote: »

2. I would consider this after posting.

Good for you.
Now would you care to address the arguments i made.....

IrishMike

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its effectively how every professional winning sportsbettor in the world does it. But you dismiss it as 'downright stupid'. Brilliant.

No it most definitely is not.
Its how some make their money.
There are as more different strategies out there than you can shake a stick at.
Are you honestly telling me the only one that the only one that works is yours?

ArmaniJeanss

IrishMike wrote: »

No it most definitely is not.
Its how some make their money.
There are as more different strategies out there than you can shake a stick at.
Are you honestly telling me the only one that the only one that works is yours?

Mike, either you are trolling here or else its not worth my while continuing.
Every single successful strategy in the world is just a variant of what i've said to you, basically buying at a price that you have worked out is better for you than the correct price (or at a price that you can sell for higher to a third party (exchanges)).

This doesn't just apply to betting, its the fundamental principle of all business, and a sports bet is just a business commodity.

lolkelly

Mike, If you have a basic understanding of maths then you should be able to grasp that all of our points are valid. For example you say that you wouldn’t care if you wanted to back Man United and the price was either 8/13 or 8/11because you believe that United are going to win. At what point/price do you change your mind and decide not to back untied? What would you base this on?
With the example of the masters, I believe that woods will win but I don’t believe that if the event was played say 11 times that woods would win 6 of that 11. As a result, laying woods at this price would in the long term represent value and a profit. Is that basic maths too hard to understand?

Pj!

You need value to profit! Its as simple as that!

If you work in a yard, and know each horse who's set up for a win, the bookies prices wont reflect this knowledge and backing at those prices will show you profit. If the bookie also works in the yard and gets the same info, he will price it accordingly and you will get the same number of winners but you will show a loss.

For us looking at a screen it is a lot harder. I don't do any serious soccer bets (rarely anyway) but for horse racing it involves (for me) studying trainers stats and trends. I spend a few hours every day studying this and might bet once every 2 weeks. This can be different for others but this is the way I play it.

Making a profit takes work. Seeing Utd are playing Villa and putting your rolled up tenner on Utd because they are great and Villa are crap is not the way to riches. It takes more work than that. Unfortunately.

thedini

irishmike next time u are betting on a match and the odds are 8/11 pm me and i will give u 8/13 because like u said u dont care about the odds.

zuutroy

IrishMike wrote: »

Ok first off you never bet on sports yet you are picking apart my betting strategy and that of others? :rolleyes:
Zuutroy you may aswell be giving me advice about driving after reading a rules of the road book.

'I never' as opposed to 'I have never'. If you read the link I posted on page 1 you'll see that I had the bones of a successful football betting strategy based on extensive statistical analysis, such that I could see when the market on Betfair was offering better odds than I thought reflected the reality of the situation. THIS IS EFFECTIVE GAMBLING.

IrishMike wrote:

I dont make up my own prices and then back or lay the team depending
on whether paddypower or boylesports prices are higher or lower.
Thats downright stupid.

No, this piece of text is downright stupid. Its amazing that you can continue to argue with a number of people who know what they're talking about. Are we all wrong?

zuutroy

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Every single successful strategy in the world is just a variant of what i've said to you, basically buying at a price that you have worked out is better for you than the correct price (or at a price that you can sell for higher to a third party (exchanges)).

This doesn't just apply to betting, its the fundamental principle of all business, and a sports bet is just a business commodity.

The quoted post should be the final word, because there's no argument against it that could possibly hold any weight.

Mellor

Hi Mike, I believe I had the "value" conversation with you before.
I think it was a spin up you were trying and you bet on a tennis player after he won the first set, I said it was bad as after he won the first his odds dropped by alot. The value was with the other player.

IrishMike wrote: »

I know thats an extreme example but lets look at the masters which was mentioned earlier.
Can someone please give me a metric to give me a price where woods would be considered a good price?
Would it be 2-1? Would it be 3-1?
What makes one not worth it but the next price worth it?

My problem is with the previous "informed gamblers" who are saying that
despite thinking woods will win the masters that laying him is better value.
How on earth can not backing the outcome you think most likely be the basis
for a betting system?
It that not a complete paradox?

Ok, you have asked this Masters question twice and it has been missed. This is my bread and butter so i'll give it a simple run down.
by the way, it is a paradox. a paradox is an apparent contradiction. As in it appears to be a contradiction at first, but once you think about it, or it is explained, you will see it is not a contradiction, hense a paradox.

The explaination.
Woods is priced at 11/10
Lets say the field is offered at 4/5 (, (my estimation of what the field would be if woods was 11/10)

There are 100 golfers or so entered. Out of these Tiger Woods is the most likely to win in my opinion. I would say that he might have a 40% chance of winning this masters. This is far higher than anyother player.
Therefore there is a 60% chance he won't win.

Say it was possible to make the players replay the event over and over, 5 times. And each time the odds and chances of winning were the same.

And each time you bet, €10 on woods.
Now if he is 40% to win, he should win 2 out of 5. He may win more, but be may win less. If he truely is 40%, then 2 out of 5 will be the average.

So 5 bets of €10 @ 11/10.
Total spending is €50
Total return is €42


If you had of layed him you would of won 3 bets.
So 5 bets of €10 @ 4/5
Total spending is €50
Total return is €57



So, the above bets show how if is profitable to lay Woods, even if you think he is by far most likely to win the tournament.

Pj!

Good post Mellor.

But you will always have the "I think Tiger has the best chance of winning, I'm betting on him..." people.

IrishMike

thedini wrote: »

irishmike next time u are betting on a match and the odds are 8/11 pm me and i will give u 8/13 because like u said u dont care about the odds.

Read my post again genius.
I said that the odds for a game are not my main driver to bet or not, what
i percieve the outcome will be is what i look at.
Dont put words in my mouth trying to be a smartarse :rolleyes:

Keano

I have to agree that you need a certain amount of luck in gambling - hell you need a barrell full of it sometimes
Look at Cheltenham and Aintree this year, the amount of favourites who were turned over was shocking
No one could have predicted such and outcome, it comes down to luck as well as other factors!
What james is at involves plenty of luck! The dogs are a risky business but I say fair play to him and keep it up

IrishMike

zuutroy wrote: »

Its amazing that you can continue to argue with a number of people who know what they're talking about.

May i ask how i know these people actually know what they are talking about?
All these "informed" people have done is be downright condescending to the
point of derision trying to inform me of some almost mythical trait called
value which i was unaware of.
I repeated asked for it to be quantified but instead was given even more
vague and unhelpful replies.

zuutroy wrote: »

The quoted post should be the final word, because there's no argument against it that could possibly hold any weight.

Arrogance is really a lovely trait.
There are plenty of possible arguments against this "final word"
None you will hold any creedance to, since you are well versed in all
the ways to bet.
Are you telling me that if i gave you a computer program that is 100%
guaranteed to predict 1 result every week for you that you would ignore
some of the calls if you thought the reward was not high enough?

Mellor wrote: »

Hi Mike, I believe I had the "value" conversation with you before.
I think it was a spin up you were trying and you bet on a tennis player after he won the first set, I said it was bad as after he won the first his odds dropped by alot. The value was with the other player.





Ok, you have asked this Masters question twice and it has been missed. This is my bread and butter so i'll give it a simple run down.
by the way, it is a paradox. a paradox is an apparent contradiction. As in it appears to be a contradiction at first, but once you think about it, or it is explained, you will see it is not a contradiction, hense a paradox.

The explaination.
Woods is priced at 11/10
Lets say the field is offered at 4/5 (, (my estimation of what the field would be if woods was 11/10)

There are 100 golfers or so entered. Out of these Tiger Woods is the most likely to win in my opinion. I would say that he might have a 40% chance of winning this masters. This is far higher than anyother player.
Therefore there is a 60% chance he won't win.

Say it was possible to make the players replay the event over and over, 5 times. And each time the odds and chances of winning were the same.

And each time you bet, €10 on woods.
Now if he is 40% to win, he should win 2 out of 5. He may win more, but be may win less. If he truely is 40%, then 2 out of 5 will be the average.

So 5 bets of €10 @ 11/10.
Total spending is €50
Total return is €42


If you had of layed him you would of won 3 bets.
So 5 bets of €10 @ 4/5
Total spending is €50
Total return is €57



So, the above bets show how if is profitable to lay Woods, even if you think he is by far most likely to win the tournament.

I asked about 15 times for someone to explain this as laying is not a concept
i am overly familiar with.
Thanks for that Mellor, appreciate it.

zuutroy

IrishMike wrote: »

May i ask how i know these people actually know what they are talking about?
All these "informed" people have done is be downright condescending to the
point of derision trying to inform me of some almost mythical trait called
value which i was unaware of.
I repeated asked for it to be quantified but instead was given even more
vague and unhelpful replies.

These people, myself included, like to think we know what we're talking about because we've spend 100's of hours studying gambling theory and discussing poker strategy involving some extremely complex situations.
They're not being condescending. They're forcefully voicing opinions on something they are passionate about because they've invested a lot of time and effort in an attempt to master it. Can you blame people for being a little miffed when something they have worked very hard at is rubbished as 'mythical' by someone who clearly knows little about the subject and is too obstinate to recognise valuable and meaningful advice thats widely accepted by gaming theorists (and most other people with any logic) as fundamentally correct?

Bubs101

I really don't understand how value betters will refuse to bet on absolute certs. Take Chelsea tommorow, definitely going to win but the odds aren't great. Even still they are tickling my fancy because I know that Chelsea will win. Turkish teams can't play away, Chelsea can't lose at home, at least that's how I see it.

Now Forky, you don't have to have that viewpoint but pretend for a moment that you did. You would be certain Chelsea would win and you wouldn't bet on them?

twerg_85

IrishMike wrote: »

How on earth can not backing the outcome you think most likely be the basis
for a betting system?
It that not a complete paradox?

Let's say we're roling a dice. It's more likely that the dice will show 1-5 than that it will show 6.
If you offer me odds of 10/1 on the dice coming up 6, I'll be happy to bet with you all night, even though I think the other outcome (not a 6) is 5 times more likely.

If we have 6 horses, or athletes, it's harder to assign probabilities (as you stated, this is a somehwat subjective matter), but it's what everyone should do when making a bet.

You don't need to be precise about it, but if you think that Team A has somewhere between a 60%-70% chance of beating Team B (based on form, gut feeling, thorough research or just your mate's opinion) then you should only back Team A if the odds offered are better than this. The more precise you can be (based on better research or gut feeling) the more money you can make in the long run.