Tips for Tikay

[Karabiner]

I believe she was recently added to the market on pads, it seems like they indiscriminately added a bunch of unseeded players at 500s. She wasn't on there a couple of days ago. She also started out at 400s on Uni/triple 8 two weeks ago before being bet in a bit.

Magdalena Rybarikova Womens Wimbledon 2017 Winner
500/1 Each Way (2 Places at 1/2 Odds)
Total Stake: £4.42
Potential Returns: £1,661.92

I am on my phone so can't see the price history on oddschecker, but this looks like someone has reset paddies prices on her with the old/preseason price.   Did anyone check?  

Cheers.  I would still be pretty wary of taking it.  Gl

Paddies just cut her price to 275/1 so it would seem to be okay.

[dino1980]

So I think I've spotted an edge when betting on penalty shootouts and having run the math past a friend he said it checked out. However, the info I have the bookies also do so I’m thinking there must be a flaw in my thinking so I wanted to run it past TFT.

Academic research (over a large sample) shows that the team kicking first in a shootout has a 60% chance of winning, but the bookies usually price the two teams up at the same price.

Yesterday Germany and England were both 1.9 to win on BetEveryDayOfTheYear, even when it was clear Germany was going to take the first kick.

Doing some math if we bet £20 on the team going first in 100 shootouts we risk £2,000. For each bet, we win we receive £38 (20 x 1.9). £38 x 60 = £2,280. 280/2000x100 = 14% ROI.

I think my math is correct, so what am I missing? I know this bet assumes two equally skilled teams but bet size could be scaled up or down if there’s a large skill gap between the two teams/penalties are being taken in front of Team A/B’s fans etc.



Not strictly a rec for TFT but if anyone happens to be watching the Confed Cup semi-finals this week and one goes to penalties this could be an angle.

This big discrepency is one reason they're looking to introduce the ABBA system in penalty shootouts.
/ramble

?

If we risk £2000 we win £1800
100 bets of £20 = £2000 to win 100 x £18 so we lose £200 or 10% every time we bet

It appears your £38 x60 calculation is kind of insignificant unless Im missing something ?

But we always back the team who shoot first. They are always* priced at 1.9. They 'should' win 60% of the time. *At least the times i've made this bet and it's with more than one bookie.

So £20@1.9 odds = £38 if we win the bet. £38 x 60 (the number of times the bet should win out of 100) = £2,280. That was my methodology + where the 38x60 figure comes in. Like I say I could have made a massive error somewhere in here and for the bookies to allow this edge when it's common knowledge makes me think I must be doing something wrong.

[RobS]

So I think I've spotted an edge when betting on penalty shootouts and having run the math past a friend he said it checked out. However, the info I have the bookies also do so I’m thinking there must be a flaw in my thinking so I wanted to run it past TFT.

Academic research (over a large sample) shows that the team kicking first in a shootout has a 60% chance of winning, but the bookies usually price the two teams up at the same price.

Yesterday Germany and England were both 1.9 to win on BetEveryDayOfTheYear, even when it was clear Germany was going to take the first kick.

Doing some math if we bet £20 on the team going first in 100 shootouts we risk £2,000. For each bet, we win we receive £38 (20 x 1.9). £38 x 60 = £2,280. 280/2000x100 = 14% ROI.

I think my math is correct, so what am I missing? I know this bet assumes two equally skilled teams but bet size could be scaled up or down if there’s a large skill gap between the two teams/penalties are being taken in front of Team A/B’s fans etc.



Not strictly a rec for TFT but if anyone happens to be watching the Confed Cup semi-finals this week and one goes to penalties this could be an angle.

This big discrepency is one reason they're looking to introduce the ABBA system in penalty shootouts.
/ramble

?

If we risk £2000 we win £1800
100 bets of £20 = £2000 to win 100 x £18 so we lose £200 or 10% every time we bet

It appears your £38 x60 calculation is kind of insignificant unless Im missing something ?

But we always back the team who shoot first. They are always* priced at 1.9. They 'should' win 60% of the time. *At least the times i've made this bet and it's with more than one bookie.

So £20@1.9 odds = £38 if we win the bet. £38 x 60 (the number of times the bet should win out of 100) = £2,280. That was my methodology + where the 38x60 figure comes in. Like I say I could have made a massive error somewhere in here and for the bookies to allow this edge when it's common knowledge makes me think I must be doing something wrong.

Simple way to look at it is you are getting 1.9 about what you think is a 1.67 shot.

1.9 / 1.67 = 1.14.

So you are correct, in theory a 14% ROI.

[dino1980]

Cheers Rob, thank you for simplifying my long ramble. 

[FUN4FRASER]

Cheers Rob, thank you for simplifying my long ramble.  

apologies didn't see the   " the team kicking first in a shootout has a 60% chance of winning "

So just lump on team going first every time  and if the first best loses use the Martingale system

Easy Game  

[Karabiner]

Cheers Rob, thank you for simplifying my long ramble.  

apologies didn't see the   " the team kicking first in a shootout has a 60% chance of winning "

So just lump on team going first every time  and if the first best loses use the Martingale system

Easy Game  

Remind me Fraser - what became of Martingale?

[The Camel]

Hi Dino

Where do you get the team to take the first penalty is 60% to win from?

I just can't see them  having that big an advantage.

[nuros]

I've just seen the bet on Giannis Antetokounmpo has been settled as a winner for most improved player in this NBA season, thanks and well done to whoever put this up, sorry I can't remember who!

[tikay]

Cheers Rob, thank you for simplifying my long ramble.  

apologies didn't see the   " the team kicking first in a shootout has a 60% chance of winning "

So just lump on team going first every time  and if the first best loses use the Martingale system

Easy Game  

Remind me Fraser - what became of Martingale?

[bergeroo]

I've just seen the bet on Giannis Antetokounmpo has been settled as a winner for most improved player in this NBA season, thanks and well done to whoever put this up, sorry I can't remember who!

BOOM! Amazing scenes. I'm happy about this one He really is a unique player, great to watch too.

[dino1980]

Hi Dino

Where do you get the team to take the first penalty is 60% to win from?

I just can't see them  having that big an advantage.

Hey Keith,

I think the original research is in the Soccernomics book. There are various links that quote the 60% figure but I think they all stem from here: http://www.soccermetrics.net/paper-discussions/penalty-kick-shootout-paper-apesteguia-palacios-huerta

For balance this is a link that isn't so enamoured with their findings: http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/shooting-first-is-no-advantage-in.html?m=1

Worth noting  that the findings are from 2011 so the relevant data from the last six years aren't included.

[The Camel]

Hi Dino

Where do you get the team to take the first penalty is 60% to win from?

I just can't see them  having that big an advantage.

Hey Keith,

I think the original research is in the Soccernomics book. There are various links that quote the 60% figure but I think they all stem from here: http://www.soccermetrics.net/paper-discussions/penalty-kick-shootout-paper-apesteguia-palacios-huerta

For balance this is a link that isn't so enamoured with their findings: http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/shooting-first-is-no-advantage-in.html?m=1

Worth noting  that the findings are from 2011 so the relevant data from the last six years aren't included.

Find it difficult to believe bookmakers don't know this stat (if it's true).

Maybe the team kicking first have a tiny edge. 51-49 or possibly 48-52..

But 60-40 would be ginormous!

[Peter-27]

This formula 1 race in Baku is as mad a race as I have seen.

Vettel should get a big penalty?  Unfortunately for us.

Last Grand Prix in Baku?

I don't really understand why Vettel's penalty wasn't more severe. Need to understand that decision.

Why would this be the last race in Baku?

I think Vettel's penalty should have been more severe, but glad it wasn't for the bet.  But having said that Schumacher and Prost won titles by driving into people and didn't get punished (in fact the opposite happened with Prost).

It should be the last race as it is too dangerous, but money talks. They allegedly pay huge amounts to get a Grand Prix and I guess next year's race is going to get a lot of viewers too.  If they can't clear the cars/ debris easily, bad grip and with parts very narrow, it seems they just wouldn't race here without the dollars.

So the stewards gave Sebastian a 10 second stop/go penalty which is the second highest penalty they could have given him. The highest would have been a black flag (disqualification). The FIA are now launching their own investigation into this, and what I'm hearing is that Sebastian will receive a further sanction; potentially a big fine or a one race ban. You're right about Schumacher and Prost, but that's a very different era where safety did have less importance.

I don't think anyone else has suggested, or even thought, that the Baku City Circuit is too dangerous .. why do you think that? It has to meet the same safety standards as every other track.

[jakally]

Hi Dino

Where do you get the team to take the first penalty is 60% to win from?

I just can't see them  having that big an advantage.

Hey Keith,

I think the original research is in the Soccernomics book. There are various links that quote the 60% figure but I think they all stem from here: http://www.soccermetrics.net/paper-discussions/penalty-kick-shootout-paper-apesteguia-palacios-huerta

For balance this is a link that isn't so enamoured with their findings: http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/shooting-first-is-no-advantage-in.html?m=1

Worth noting  that the findings are from 2011 so the relevant data from the last six years aren't included.

Find it difficult to believe bookmakers don't know this stat (if it's true).

Maybe the team kicking first have a tiny edge. 51-49 or possibly 48-52..

But 60-40 would be ginormous!

Bloke on Talksport today quoted the same figure - think he had written a book about penalty shootouts.
He also said that it comes from the fact that if a player needs to score to keep his team in it, he only scores 64% of the time.

[dino1980]

Hi Dino

Where do you get the team to take the first penalty is 60% to win from?

I just can't see them  having that big an advantage.

Hey Keith,

I think the original research is in the Soccernomics book. There are various links that quote the 60% figure but I think they all stem from here: http://www.soccermetrics.net/paper-discussions/penalty-kick-shootout-paper-apesteguia-palacios-huerta

For balance this is a link that isn't so enamoured with their findings: http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/shooting-first-is-no-advantage-in.html?m=1

Worth noting  that the findings are from 2011 so the relevant data from the last six years aren't included.

Find it difficult to believe bookmakers don't know this stat (if it's true).

Maybe the team kicking first have a tiny edge. 51-49 or possibly 48-52..

But 60-40 would be ginormous!

Can't argue with any of what you say. I'm going to do some research myself on this, look at shootouts and see what the numbers say. I also think that even if the actual figure is 60% then common sense applies. Exeter City shooting first vs Liverpool in front of The Kop is a very different beast to the reverse of that.