gambling strategies - Help please

nkay1985

twerg_85 wrote: »

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 higher than 70% (or more to allow yourself a profit margin). The more precise you can be (based on better research or gut feeling) the more money you can make in the long run.

Hey,

First time posting in here. I've been reading a few threads today and, fair enough, some of what's been said has been lost on me because I'm not really a gambler, and haven't studied it. But I am good with Maths and, so, understand what you're saying here.

My only problem is what you mean when you say "only back Team A if the odds offered are higher than 70%". I don't understand how you can express odds as a percentage. Surely this has to be a percentage of something??? Any chance you could clarify?

Thanks.

twerg_85

nkay1985 wrote: »

Hey,

I don't understand how you can express odds as a percentage.

Thanks.

Odds of m to n is equivalent to probability of n/(n+m).

So, 9 to 1 is the same as probability of 1/10, or 0.1 which is 10%.

If you take any event, you can convert all the odds to percentages this way. If they add up to more than 100%, then the odds aren't fair, there's a margin built in for the person offering the odds (the bookie).

IrishMike

zuutroy wrote: »

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.

Good for you.
Sports betting is more than a little different than poker.

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.

You need to reread some of the posts in this thread especially your own if thats honestly your opinion

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?

You really should reread this thread mate.
Gaming theorist? You are a poker player first and foremost are you not?
Not direcly applicable to sports betting imho but you will no doubt tell me
that is wrong too.:eek:

nkay1985

twerg_85 wrote: »

Odds of m to n is equivalent to probability of n/(n+m).

So, 9 to 1 is the same as probability of 1/10, or 0.1 which is 10%.

If you take any event, you can convert all the odds to percentages this way. If they add up to more than 100%, then the odds aren't fair, there's a margin built in for the person offering the odds (the bookie).

OK, that seems to make sense.

Just a check to make sure I've got it. One of the other posts says Liverpool to qualify @ 8-13. This equates to 61.9%. So the bookie reckons that 61.9% of the time, Liverpool will qualify. If I think they're likely to qualify 75% of the time (based on research as accurate as can be), then there's value in me taking that bet. Correct???

Collie D

nkay1985 wrote: »

OK, that seems to make sense.

Just a check to make sure I've got it. One of the other posts says Liverpool to qualify @ 8-13. This equates to 61.9%. So the bookie reckons that 61.9% of the time, Liverpool will qualify. If I think they're likely to qualify 75% of the time (based on research as accurate as can be), then there's value in me taking that bet. Correct???

Yup

nkay1985

Collie D wrote: »

Yup

Ok, thanks. It's a calculation you always roughly weigh up without thinking about it anyway, but formalising it as a thought process would definitely be beneficial.

Pj!

Bubs101 wrote: »

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?

This is where we differ Bubs. I see nothing as a sure thing! If the game was played 100 times do you think Chelsea would win 100 times? No they wouldnt. (this is how I started using value, playing every situation 100 times in my head)

As you say, if I did have that viewpoint, I can only presume that I would bet a lot of money on the game tomorrow. That's if I had money to bet with from all my other 'sure things'.

Seriously though, I am not here to say that I am right or to sound big headed or anything. The way I go about betting is correct though! It takes everyone time to get it. Its just the concept though. The work still has to be done to show regular profit.
It's for some people, its not for others.

twerg_85

nkay1985 wrote: »

One of the other posts says Liverpool to qualify @ 8-13. This equates to 61.9%. So the bookie reckons that 61.9% of the time, Liverpool will qualify. If I think they're likely to qualify 75% of the time (based on research as accurate as can be), then there's value in me taking that bet. Correct???

Yup, but just to stress that the bookie really thinks Liverpool have about a 56% chance of winning, which is why his odds are 8-13. Thus as most of the posts say, betting randomly will ensure you lose long term.

nkay1985

twerg_85 wrote: »

Yup, but just to stress that the bookie really thinks Liverpool have about a 56% chance of winning, which is why his odds are 8-13. Thus as most of the posts say, betting randomly will ensure you lose long term.

Where'd teh 56% come from?

Pj!

They need their margin to make profit. Which of course wont help punters as this has to be beaten as well. This is why Betfair is popular as the margins are smaller.

ArmaniJeanss

nkay1985 wrote: »

Where'd teh 56% come from?

Example.
In a pure 50/50 matchup (say Selby v DingJunhui in snooker) a fair book would offer 1/1 and 1/1. However the bookies would offer 5/6 and 5/6. So the bookie thinks Ebdon has a 50% chance but offers you 54%. This is his profit and makes it difficult for us to win without hard work (or the OPs random number generator).

nkay1985

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Example.
In a pure 50/50 matchup (say Selby v DingJunhui in snooker) a fair book would offer 1/1 and 1/1. However the bookies would offer 5/6 and 5/6. So the bookie thinks Ebdon has a 50% chance but offers you 54%. This is his profit and makes it difficult for us to win without hard work (or the OPs random number generator).

Oh right, a 9 - 10% profit margin for him. That sounds like some magic random number generator. In fact, the word random shouldn't be in there at all. It must be an extremely complex piece of software that takes everything into account! Incidentally, I know American sports bettors have programs which help them handicap sports - does anything like this exist in the sports we all love (and hate)?

Slash/ED

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?

The great thing is lots of people like that have...

hotspur

Trying to explain the fundamental theories of gambling to people like Irishmike and Jameshayes is like showing a card trick to a dog. The bottom line is they are either just not intelligent enough to grasp it, or they are too insecure and intransigent to try. There is little you can do to help people who think in such broad categories as "I think he will win" "I think he will lose".

The serious pro sports bettors use sophisticated computer software to crunch innumerable data to better approximate probabilities of winning and losing than the bookies. Sometimes their output results in +EV bets with bookies even given the overround. If you like Irishmike I can write some sportsbetting software for you that will crunch lots of data and then produce: "I think this will win", you can then continue to crush the bookies

wb

Anyone who thinks that they can get away with loss chasing on a long-term basis does not understand gambling. If shorts odds selections did not get beaten on a regular basis (sometimes a few in a row), then we'd all give up work and bet for a living. This approach is the oldest in the book, and if it worked, there would be no such thing as a bookie shop.

Odds on shots can and do get beaten all the time. How about the absolute cert in the three horse race at Plumpton today? It was 1/12 and couldn't lose if you were to believe the 'free money' brigade. Guess what? It lost:

2:50
1 Captain Smoothy 10-1
2 Sir Harry Ormesher 1-12 Fav
3 ran
NR: Walkingonsunshine
WIN £15.40
Ex £14.20 CSF £12.25


If you don't believe a number of odds on shots can get beaten in a row, have a read of this research I produced over on let's bet:

http://www.letsbet.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=1394

Loss chasing can work for a limited time, and if the OP has been lucky enough to keep his bank intact, he needs to get out now.

phantom_lord

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?

lol, my first thought on reading the thread

HiCloy

This has been highly informative

OP, have you considered this strategy in conjunction with you RNG dog laying? It's a guaranteed winner!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28betting_system%29

(unless you go bankrupt)

buckfast4me

Bubs101 wrote: »

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?

Rofl @ above.

If you are so sure then remortgage your house, or get your parents to remortgage their house to come up with about €100k. Or else put all your savings on, and go to the bank and get a car loan for €20k and lump everything you have on it. You'll be rich! :pac:

You wouldn't? Explain why please. (Before you even answer - the answer is because you are not 100% certain in your mind of the Chelsea win).

The amount people like you will stake on those kind of bets reflects your certainty of the win (relative to your bank balance I suppose).

StephenInsane

The people who are saying 'this will never work' are clearly the ones who are deluded. LoL @ people who are saying 'he shouldn't do this, he's defo gonna lose because this strategy has a negative EV'. Go back to reading the poker forum!

Have you never heard of the Lotto? The lotto has a negative EV because the profit from winning is lower than the odds of winning, You've getting a price of 3,000,000/1 on something that's really a 10,000,000/1 shot (or whatever). So by virtue of saying this will never be porfitable, you're saying playing the lotto can and never will be profitable? Tell this to Delores McNamera. If she played Lotto every week for the next 500 years, I gaurantee you she'd still be up money, and the chances of winning the Lotto are A LOT slimer than the chances of this working!

This has been profitable for the OP so far, and more power to him if it continues to generate him easy money.

buckfast4me

StephenInsane wrote: »

So by virtue of saying this will never be porfitable, you're saying playing the lotto can and never will be profitable?

Nobody said that. Of course it will be profitable.. the catch is it will only be profitable once for every 8,145,060 times you play it.

buckfast4me

jameshayes wrote: »

The method i'm using at the moment is a random number generator (link; http://www.random.org/dice/?num=1)

Surely this thread is some sort of windup.. no? I'll wake the housemates with any more laughter.

buckfast4me

By the way OP, since I'm studying computer science - I thought I would put my skills to some practical use and so I've written you a nice little C program that might save you some bandwidth rather than having to use that website all the time - or if your internet connection goes down or something. Anyway here we go:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <rand.h>
main()
{
    printf("Oh my god, &#37;d is WINNAR \n", (rand() % 6));
}

Give it a try, you need a C compiler to compile and execute it.

phantom_lord

StephenInsane wrote: »

The people who are saying 'this will never work' are clearly the ones who are deluded. LoL @ people who are saying 'he shouldn't do this, he's defo gonna lose because this strategy has a negative EV'. Go back to reading the poker forum!

Have you never heard of the Lotto? The lotto has a negative EV because the profit from winning is lower than the odds of winning, You've getting a price of 3,000,000/1 on something that's really a 10,000,000/1 shot (or whatever). So by virtue of saying this will never be porfitable, you're saying playing the lotto can and never will be profitable? Tell this to Delores McNamera. If she played Lotto every week for the next 500 years, I gaurantee you she'd still be up money, and the chances of winning the Lotto are A LOT slimer than the chances of this working!

This has been profitable for the OP so far, and more power to him if it continues to generate him easy money.

that's some really flawed logic right there.

StephenInsane

buckfast4me wrote: »

That's different. Think about before the euromillions draw took place when she won. She wasn't guaranteed profit, the odds were stacked against her. But at the same time, she wasn't trying to make a living from playing the euromillions..

Did the OP say he is trying to make a living from this system? OP can get lucky and make a profit from this system, the same way someone can get lucky and win the lotto. He is no way guaranteed profit from this system, as he is gambling. But as with all forms of gambling, making profit it IS very much within the realms of possiblity. I am aware that over 90%+ of the time this is going to fail, but who's to say he won't fluke it? He's doing well so far, and I for one certainly don't begrudge him because he's doing it against the odds.

buckfast4me wrote: »

People who back something at x/1 and can lay it at (x-1)/1 ARE guaranteed profit.

True, but people who try to back high lay low don't always come out ahead. This is gambling the same as all other gambling, you never know which way the market is going to shift. Sure there are clues to indicate, but the same way there are clues to indicate which team is going to win a footy match, you can never be certain.

Anyway, that's beside the point.

phantom_lord wrote: »

that's some really flawed logic right there.

Constructive critcism only please. If you're gonna make a point back it up.

IrishMike

Glad that the rules on personal attacks and pointless off topic posts dont count any more in the gambling forum!

buckfast4me

StephenInsane wrote: »

True, but people who try to back high lay low don't always come out ahead. This is gambling the same as all other gambling, you never know which way the market is going to shift.

Who said anything about the market shifting? What if 1 bookmaker is offering inflated odds, you place bet at said odds - then lay bet for lesser odds on an exchange. This is what everyone here is trying to tell you regarding finding value.

IrishMike

hotspur wrote: »

Trying to explain the fundamental theories of gambling to people like Irishmike and Jameshayes is like showing a card trick to a dog. The bottom line is they are either just not intelligent enough to grasp it, or they are too insecure and intransigent to try. There is little you can do to help people who think in such broad categories as "I think he will win" "I think he will lose".

The serious pro sports bettors use sophisticated computer software to crunch innumerable data to better approximate probabilities of winning and losing than the bookies. Sometimes their output results in +EV bets with bookies even given the overround. If you like Irishmike I can write some sportsbetting software for you that will crunch lots of data and then produce: "I think this will win", you can then continue to crush the bookies

buckfast4me wrote: »

By the way OP, since I'm studying computer science - I thought I would put my skills to some practical use and so I've written you a nice little C program that might save you some bandwidth rather than having to use that website all the time - or if your internet connection goes down or something. Anyway here we go:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <rand.h>
main()
{
    printf("Oh my god, %d is WINNAR \n", (rand() % 6));
}

Give it a try, you need a C compiler to compile and execute it.

You really must be top of your class with insight like that.
If i want software to do that for me then i would be more than
capable of writing it myself since i have already completed the degree you
are attempting so you can lose the superiority complex :rolleyes:

Amazes me the amount of people posting here who until now never
posted in this forum. Maybe if ye were as good as ye claimed and could
actually prove it with one or two insightful posts regarding sporting bets,
which is what this forum is actually for, then ye're posts would hold some
weight. :pac:

IrishMike

buckfast4me wrote: »

Who said anything about the market shifting? What if 1 bookmaker is offering inflated odds, you place bet at said odds - then lay bet for lesser odds on an exchange. This is what everyone here is trying to tell you regarding finding value.

And since that is the only strategy that can make money every gambler
made losses before betting exchanges became mainstream.
Do you honestly not see the holes in the crap ye are speaking?

buckfast4me

Where did I say it was the only strategy that can make money?

wb

The Lotto as a profitable strategy?

Christ lads, this thread needs to be locked. It's just embarrassing.

Of course people can win on the lotto. Someone has to win - but the odds are stacked against you, and most of the millions of people that play will never win it.

People understand this though, and play because it offers a massive payout for a small sum. It's just luck though. Discussions about the lotto as a profitable strategy have no place in any reputable gambling forum.

Nobody is saying you can't win the lotto - but it's very likely that you wont.