Tips for Tikay

[Peter-27]

The best way I can explain myself is through an example. Let's look at the race win market tomorrow for the Belgian GP. Roberto Merhi and Will Stevens are both 7500/1 to win the race. However, if you ran the race 7500 times - they would more than likely win two of them, albeit under exceptionally crazy circumstances. Does this mean we should bet big on Manor every GP? No, certainly not, surely?

Firstly let me say my knowledge of sports betting is non-existent but how is this right?

If they would win the race twice if you ran it 7500 times then surely a small bet on them every race (maybe just like 10p) would be correct? There is still an edge there?

Am I misunderstanding?

I don't know, that's why I asked. The suggestions I was getting in previous posts suggest that I should be betting big on this every race - which makes no sense to me.

[DMorgan]

The best way I can explain myself is through an example. Let's look at the race win market tomorrow for the Belgian GP. Roberto Merhi and Will Stevens are both 7500/1 to win the race. However, if you ran the race 7500 times - they would more than likely win two of them, albeit under exceptionally crazy circumstances. Does this mean we should bet big on Manor every GP? No, certainly not, surely?

Firstly let me say my knowledge of sports betting is non-existent but how is this right?

If they would win the race twice if you ran it 7500 times then surely a small bet on them every race (maybe just like 10p) would be correct? There is still an edge there?

Am I misunderstanding?

I don't know, that's why I asked. The suggestions I was getting in previous posts suggest that I should be betting big on this every race - which makes no sense to me.

That is a very extreme example but yeah your staking should be proportional to the edge that you think that you have and if you're getting 7500/1 about a true 5000/1 shot then you should be having a bet every time. Its the same as poker players regging the WSOP main. You'll only get to play a certain number of times in your lifetime and you're really unlikely to ever win but playing still has hugely positive EV.

You have to balance this against risk/reward because if you're a winning punter then you're going to find profitable bets in the future, so you need to make sure that you actually have some of your bankroll left to take those profitable bets. If we did the the maths (I'm not going to attempt to here) and looked in pure EV terms on a £10k bankroll we would have to make a LOT of profitable bets to capture the EV that we could be putting the whole £10k on a true 5000/1 shot getting 7500/1, but then 4999 times out of 5000 we're busto.

What is certain from an £EV standpoint is that if you're bankrolled to place the footy spread bet that you did then you're staking waaaaay too small on the F1. There are a host of reasons to not want to maximise your £EV. I suspect that for you betting on football is business and F1 is something that you're obviously really passionate about where sweating big money on it every race weekend might detract from the enjoyment. I'm very much the same with ice hockey, big follower of the NHL but I've never had a bet on it because its just something that I enjoy spectating. Anything else would be a bet though, I mean I'm gunna have one eye on the WWE summer slam tonight ffs

All that said, the size of your spread position kinda of suggests that you're in this to make a decent wedge and if that is true then you definitely have stake size leaks. Luckily this is the perfect place to fix them should wish to do so. It'd be a very interesting exercise imo if you put up what you think the true price would be on all of your selections and then let some of the maths sharpies suggest what the bet size would be in terms of %age of bankroll. Personally my stake size for you selections is always 3-4x what you suggest and I would be surprised if it wasn't the same for most of the people following your stuff and that I think should be taken as a sign. Perhaps a sign that I don't know what I'm doing, but a sign nonetheless!

Good luck all with the race today

[Nico29]

Not one for fred as just with shy and presume cant get on with winner, but for others that might like it here goes..

Really like an ew bet on rosberg@11/4 in the grand prix with place terms of first 2 third odds. Most books correctly offer a quarter here and even then you dont get a terrible bet. We lose a little on the win as its 4.5 bf, but on the place we get 1.91 on a 3's on shot. Its been backed at that price on the machine.

[Chompy]

Poshies are still being priced up like a play-off team, when in fact we're Crewe in blue shirts.

Gillingham are still being priced up like Crewe, when in fact they're a play-off team.

Fumming that I didn't back them pre-season because of a touch schedule, but they've beaten Sheff Utd and Wigan, and as long as they have Bradley Dack they'll be fine.

Next weekend's match should be, at best, 13-8 Poshies, 5-2 Draw, 13-8 Gillingham, but they've opened Evs Poshies, 12-5 Draw, 12-5 Gillingham.

Rec £50 Gillingham @ 12-5 in a couple of spots.

Also, Poshies have been starting games slowly and Zakuani will be suspended next weekend, meaning another reshuffle at the back, so also £20 on Gills-Gills half-full @ 11-2 with Joke.

Dave 'Over The Moon' Robertson is a footballing version of David Brent and won't be there much longer. We're opposable until he's gone.

[Doobs]

The best way I can explain myself is through an example. Let's look at the race win market tomorrow for the Belgian GP. Roberto Merhi and Will Stevens are both 7500/1 to win the race. However, if you ran the race 7500 times - they would more than likely win two of them, albeit under exceptionally crazy circumstances. Does this mean we should bet big on Manor every GP? No, certainly not, surely?

Firstly let me say my knowledge of sports betting is non-existent but how is this right?

If they would win the race twice if you ran it 7500 times then surely a small bet on them every race (maybe just like 10p) would be correct? There is still an edge there?

Am I misunderstanding?

I don't know, that's why I asked. The suggestions I was getting in previous posts suggest that I should be betting big on this every race - which makes no sense to me.

I'd just say this is a terrible example.  The chances of rags winning is hard to measure but I am sure you picked the wrong one anyway.  Ericsson at 2000/1 must be better than the complete rags at 7500/1.  Don't know if it is value though.  I'd be very surprised if backing Will Stevens was.

To get away from some of the confusion you cause, I will just put up a general example.  If you have 2 bets that you both have a 20% edge should you bet the same on an even money chance as on a 33/1 chance?  The answer should be no because the returns you get from the 33/1 chance will be more volatile.  If you had 50 £100 bets on even money chances, with 20% edge, you'd expect to at least break even most of the time and the likely range something like £0 to £1000 in profit.  On the 33/1 chances you could easily go 50 without a win or just one win, so you could see -£5000, or -£1400 quite easily.  So bad runs of results that can bust you are much more likely when backing big priced horses.

But this doesn't mean we should always back bigger on short priced horses than big priced ones.  That us because you can have a bigger edge on bigger priced results.  So if you think a 33/1 chance should really be 10/1 (will suspend my scepticism for the argument), and another bet that is 4/1 that should be 3/1, what should you do?  Well the first bet will clearly produce a bigger EV than the second one, so if we ignore volatility we should definitely bet bigger on the 33/1 chance.  I'd also suggest that even if we allow for volatility the first bet should still be bigger.

But it is really important that you don't get carried away with this and start assuming that you can pick many 33/1 chances that should be 10/1.  Most should really be 50/1.

[Nico29]

The best way I can explain myself is through an example. Let's look at the race win market tomorrow for the Belgian GP. Roberto Merhi and Will Stevens are both 7500/1 to win the race. However, if you ran the race 7500 times - they would more than likely win two of them, albeit under exceptionally crazy circumstances. Does this mean we should bet big on Manor every GP? No, certainly not, surely?

Firstly let me say my knowledge of sports betting is non-existent but how is this right?

If they would win the race twice if you ran it 7500 times then surely a small bet on them every race (maybe just like 10p) would be correct? There is still an edge there?

Am I misunderstanding?

I don't know, that's why I asked. The suggestions I was getting in previous posts suggest that I should be betting big on this every race - which makes no sense to me.

I'd just say this is a terrible example.  The chances of rags winning is hard to measure but I am sure you picked the wrong one anyway.  Ericsson at 2000/1 must be better than the complete rags at 7500/1.  Don't know if it is value though.  I'd be very surprised if backing Will Stevens was.

To get away from some of the confusion you cause, I will just put up a general example.  If you have 2 bets that you both have a 20% edge should you bet the same on an even money chance as on a 33/1 chance?  The answer should be no because the returns you get from the 33/1 chance will be more volatile.  If you had 50 £100 bets on even money chances, with 20% edge, you'd expect to at least break even most of the time and the likely range something like £0 to £1000 in profit.  On the 33/1 chances you could easily go 50 without a win or just one win, so you could see -£5000, or -£1400 quite easily.  So bad runs of results that can bust you are much more likely when backing big priced horses.

But this doesn't mean we should always back bigger on short priced horses than big priced ones.  That us because you can have a bigger edge on bigger priced results.  So if you think a 33/1 chance should really be 10/1 (will suspend my scepticism for the argument), and another bet that is 4/1 that should be 3/1, what should you do?  Well the first bet will clearly produce a bigger EV than the second one, so if we ignore volatility we should definitely bet bigger on the 33/1 chance.  I'd also suggest that even if we allow for volatility the first bet should still be bigger.

But it is really important that you don't get carried away with this and start assuming that you can pick many 33/1 chances that should be 10/1.  Most should really be 50/1.

Superb post doobs.

[TightEnd]

Poshies are still being priced up like a play-off team, when in fact we're Crewe in blue shirts.

Gillingham are still being priced up like Crewe, when in fact they're a play-off team.

Fumming that I didn't back them pre-season because of a touch schedule, but they've beaten Sheff Utd and Wigan, and as long as they have Bradley Dack they'll be fine.

Next weekend's match should be, at best, 13-8 Poshies, 5-2 Draw, 13-8 Gillingham, but they've opened Evs Poshies, 12-5 Draw, 12-5 Gillingham.

Rec £50 Gillingham @ 12-5 in a couple of spots.

Also, Poshies have been starting games slowly and Zakuani will be suspended next weekend, meaning another reshuffle at the back, so also £20 on Gills-Gills half-full @ 11-2 with Joke.

Dave 'Over The Moon' Robertson is a footballing version of David Brent and won't be there much longer. We're opposable until he's gone.

£50.00 Single
Market   Selection   Price   Hcp
Peterborough United v Gillingham
Match Result
Gillingham   12/5   
Total stake   £ 50.00
Estimated return   £ 170.00
Full stake   £ 50.00
Full estimated return   £ 170.00

[tikay]

The best way I can explain myself is through an example. Let's look at the race win market tomorrow for the Belgian GP. Roberto Merhi and Will Stevens are both 7500/1 to win the race. However, if you ran the race 7500 times - they would more than likely win two of them, albeit under exceptionally crazy circumstances. Does this mean we should bet big on Manor every GP? No, certainly not, surely?

Firstly let me say my knowledge of sports betting is non-existent but how is this right?

If they would win the race twice if you ran it 7500 times then surely a small bet on them every race (maybe just like 10p) would be correct? There is still an edge there?

Am I misunderstanding?

I don't know, that's why I asked. The suggestions I was getting in previous posts suggest that I should be betting big on this every race - which makes no sense to me.

Morning Peter.

Have a good read of this thread, which is all about the maths of betting. It's pure gold.


http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=61477.0

Good luck today with the Spa stuff. Easily my favourite GP of the Year, & I'm up at DTD so wont be able to watch it properly, but it's usually a great race, & Eau Rouge (sp?) is just a heart stopper, especially in the wet.

[TightEnd]

i'm juggling lots of balls

if i have missed any reccs please repost

ty

[Chompy]

You got the halftime-fulltime rec?

[TightEnd]

a very quick update on the cricket

about to win the cardiff top scoring ground bet at 5-1 (newportlad or supernova, well done. very nice and contrarian call)

about to win the starc bet at 3.6, unless lyon takes the final two wickets

lost the cook top english runscorer bet

will lose the steve smith man of the series bet

profitable overall in what has been an odd and unpredictable series

[arbboy]

http://www.oddschecker.com/athletics/mens-world-championships/mens-100m/new-world-record

Pretty sure the 1/6 is value here.  Arb potential anyway for any arbers out here.  Love laying new WR's to happen generally.  They always go off too short as bet love betting what they want to see.  Only think i have ever laid one winner in my life (800m at 2012 london games when the guy did it on the bridle without a pacemaker!)

http://www.oddschecker.com/athletics/mens-world-championships/mens-100m/match-bet

This is a great way to bet Gatlin.  Under the betfair price to win but he only has to beat Bolt and not the field.  

[TightEnd]

You got the halftime-fulltime rec?

Gillingham/Gillingham11/2Peterborough v Gillingham - 29/08/2015
Stake £20.00
Estimated Return:£130.00
Total Stake: £20.00
Potential Return: £130.00

[Peter-27]

I'll read and reply to all those betting strategy posts later, I do appreciate the advice

Spotted another angle here:

https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/motor-racing/formula-1/mm4.uk.meeting.5325765/belgian-grand-prix-specials-and-match-bets

Massa/Raikkonen market. I would suggest buying Massa at 5.

Massa starts 6th, Raikkonen 17th .. in pretty much equal cars pace wise. That's good value I would say. Just not sure what stake size to suggest  

[TightEnd]

I'll read and reply to all those betting strategy posts later, I do appreciate the advice

Spotted another angle here:

https://www.sportingindex.com/spread-betting/motor-racing/formula-1/mm4.uk.meeting.5325765/belgian-grand-prix-specials-and-match-bets

Massa/Raikkonen market. I would suggest buying Massa at 5.

Massa starts 6th, Raikkonen 17th .. in pretty much equal cars pace wise. That's good value I would say. Just not sure what stake size to suggest 

we only do spread bets that third parties place

we don't haver spread accounts for the thread