Tips for Tikay

[tikay]

They arent gonna like my acca then if you tried

Gotta give action to get action- Trigg said it ages ago, we miss these massive +ev bets by not taking neutral ev punts earlier in thread with same bookmaker

Absolutely fair comment, but there had to be a learning curve, & unlike many who profess to know it all, I don't, & it took a while before I returned post-sabbatical to get my head round the way Markets & Bookies work these days.

I agreed with Trigg's Post at the time, but by then the damage was already done, & we were Closed (Stan James), Restricted (Paddy Power, Blue Square) & Severely Restricted (Bet365).

Also.......in my off-thread stuff - MUCH bigger than Fred - I don't always take best price, I try & mix it up a bit, give a bit of action as you suggest. But if I ever take a "less than best" price for Fred, have you ever seen the comments on here?

Not easy to balance that equation.

[tikay]

Not sure I'm in love with the F1 bet sizes tbh, risking £5 on Grosjean and £35 on Lewis.

Thoughts on upping the bet sizes all round now the thread has a proven track record?

A 5% profit pays more if you treble the average steak...

Yes, I have given it some thought.

For - yes, we win more if we up the stakes.

Against - I don't want to reach the point where I get arsey, or throw a strop, if I lose.

I think we'll turn the dial up a bit, steady as we go, but nothing drastic. Once we double the bet sizes, we have to get all serious & strict with the Fun Bets, & I think they are an essential part of the fun here.

If I decide to retire, which is in my mind right now, that would be different, as I'd need to look at making it part of my income. Different ball-game that.

[dwayne110]

I think the San Marino to score < 2.5 goals bet @ 100/1 is ideal to tag onto an accumulator for added value, but it seems daft betting £1000 for example to win £10 - you never know in football, weird things do happen as there are so many variables (dodgy ref, rooney 1st minute red card, dubious penalties, etc), it won't happen but I'd still want £500,000 behind me before I'm staking £50,000 to win that easy £500! Adding to an acca with a 10/1 price already it's adding 10% to the final winnings which suddenly seems tangible value.

[tikay]

If there is a ever a bet Fred should have it is the San Marino under 2.5 goals bet.  Simply a ridiculous price.

I see the logic Stu, clear as clear can be, it is guaranteed money, but I need to invest £150 to win £1.50? Is that really a cost-effective use of our time?

I could just as easily punt £1,500, assuming Ladbrokes allowed me, (& it had no "Account" downsides) then at least it makes it worthwhile. But in time cost alone, does £150 to win £1.50 really make sense?

[dwayne110]

....should read 10% to the original stake if already 10/1 riding, sigh... you know what i mean

[Doobs]

I think the San Marino to score < 2.5 goals bet @ 100/1 is ideal to tag onto an accumulator for added value, but it seems daft betting £1000 for example to win £10 - you never know in football, weird things do happen as there are so many variables (dodgy ref, rooney 1st minute red card, dubious penalties, etc), it won't happen but I'd still want £500,000 behind me before I'm staking £50,000 to win that easy £500! Adding to an acca with a 10/1 price already it's adding 10% to the final winnings which suddenly seems tangible value.

This is a logic fail.  £1000 cash is the same as £1000 won from a bet.  You shouldn't be treating the latter as some kind of free money.

2/9 England to win to zero seems obvious value, but thread can't get any size at b365.

[tikay]

I think the San Marino to score < 2.5 goals bet @ 100/1 is ideal to tag onto an accumulator for added value, but it seems daft betting £1000 for example to win £10 - you never know in football, weird things do happen as there are so many variables (dodgy ref, rooney 1st minute red card, dubious penalties, etc), it won't happen but I'd still want £500,000 behind me before I'm staking £50,000 to win that easy £500! Adding to an acca with a 10/1 price already it's adding 10% to the final winnings which suddenly seems tangible value.

This is a logic fail.  £1000 cash is the same as £1000 won from a bet.  You shouldn't be treating the latter as some kind of free money.

2/9 England to win to zero seems obvious value, but thread can't get any size at b365.

I would definitely have a decent bet on that at 4/9, I don't have any problem with the perceived value at all, but the Restriction kills it.

A shame, but missing it won't kill us.

[Dubai]

I think the San Marino to score < 2.5 goals bet @ 100/1 is ideal to tag onto an accumulator for added value, but it seems daft betting £1000 for example to win £10 - you never know in football, weird things do happen as there are so many variables (dodgy ref, rooney 1st minute red card, dubious penalties, etc), it won't happen but I'd still want £500,000 behind me before I'm staking £50,000 to win that easy £500! Adding to an acca with a 10/1 price already it's adding 10% to the final winnings which suddenly seems tangible value.

If the ref was bent, Rooney sent off and they score 1st min 1/100 would probably still be value. Seriously.

But obviously 1/100 doesn't attract to most punters.

[redarmi]

If there is a ever a bet Fred should have it is the San Marino under 2.5 goals bet.  Simply a ridiculous price.

I see the logic Stu, clear as clear can be, it is guaranteed money, but I need to invest £150 to win £1.50? Is that really a cost-effective use of our time?

I could just as easily punt £1,500, assuming Ladbrokes allowed me, (& it had no "Account" downsides) then at least it makes it worthwhile. But in time cost alone, does £150 to win £1.50 really make sense?

If I recall correctly the thread has an ROI in the region of 1% and certainly not more than 3%.  So if we take an average winning punter from the thread like Hector for example and assume he wins at the same rate as Fred overall then when you place £15 on one of his bets your ROI is 15p.  You will happily do that all day every day yet it is effectively exactly the same "use of your time" as this bet.  You are earning exactly the same but this is a better bet because it is much lower variance and you will just collect steadily and could possibly have these bets and never actually lose one. Also most bookmakers/traders have a mentality whereby they love to take these bets because nobody ever gets fired for laying a 1/100 winner but if it loses (they never do) then they get hailed as geniuses.  We have to get into the mindset that every single bet earns or loses us an amount of money.  That amount of money is what is important but in relation to our stake size it is relatively inconsequential.  If you are a winning punter who averages £100 a bet then everytime you place a bet you make, say, £3.  It doesn't matter whether it is a 100-1 shot or a 1-100 shot all told the only thing that matters.  The only thing I would say is that it is normally sensible to have a margin for error and it should normally be >1% and with a 1/100 shot it cannot, by its very nature, be >1% but in this spot the margin for error is tiny and it is almost inconceivable that they have more than a 0.1% chance of scoring 3 goals.   On that assumption you have a +EV of 89p for every £100 with very little variance.  Your money will be at risk for roughly 8 hours so effectively (if you could use your roll to do this every 8 hours) you have an annual return of £974 for your £100 or an interest rate of 974%.  I would imagine you would consider finding a bank that offered this rate of a return a good use of your time?

[BigAdz]

Thats a great explanation red.

My only concern as a £50/£100 a time punter, if I suddenly stump up £10000 to win, wont the fact that they can see I can still recognise this as value, then alert them to the dreaded restrictive mode, which I have worked so hard to avoid being applied? Thus in effect negating any +ev?

[redarmi]

You shouldn't be having £10k.  You should still stick to your normal staking guidelines ie no bet is more than 5% of roll etc.  I actually think given the relatively low +EV then probably £50-60 is a more appropriate bet size for fred but then Im a nit these days.

[Dubai]

Fred's roll is over 3k these days. Nearer 4?

Red if u get a min have a look at b365 prices on Rooney, Villa, Gomez and RVP 1st gs ew. Betfair pretty illiquid so hard to get a real graspe on exact value but I'd surprised if the ev of the each way part of any multiple didn't cover the loss on the win part. Best way to be with? Thinking trebles and fourfold but could be talked into reducing stakes and doing doubles as well?

It's really rare for 4 big international sides all to be 1-10 and less where goal expectation is quoted at at least 3 for each side and one firm be near best price on all their cfs with best each way terms offered. So has to be a really good bet in there somewhere

[BigAdz]

Rest assured it was never going to happen. Im from the Channing school of thinking that would rather have more money on the big priced value stuff etc.

Still find it hard to reconcile having my standard £50/£100 to win jack shit, even if over time the jack shits add up. Too much -ev on heart rate/blood pressure etc etc!!

[Dubai]

Not sure the heart rate would even alter. What price do you make San Marino to have 3 shots on target?

[BigAdz]

I hear ya.

But I also saw the Portugal price when they went 1-0 up after 7 mins go to 1.05 at one point, in the end they were lucky to get a draw.........

Seen enough of my horses go 1.01 in running and still lose, to know these things aren't always the golden goose they appear.

I would prefer to wait for your big acca and follow that in