Tips for Tikay

[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?

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?

Love all that, & the stuff from Dubai, thanks guys, I appreciate your patience.

I want to respond to various parts of it, as the theory is one thing, the practical side is another, but first off, I must correct a major disconnect somewhere.....

You said......


If I recall correctly the thread has an ROI in the region of 1% and certainly not more than 3%.

That is not correct.

Fred's Current ROI is 4.45%.

See the first column on the left......

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aia1Hxq-NDNWdFk3UmlTSXMzTjRBTVNfOWRndVFsZHc#gid=7

None of which invalidates your points, but it is a significant difference.

As we have gone along, we have learned to be more efficient. At 2% ROI, we aspired to 3%, at 3% we aspired to 4%, & now I'm fixated on 5%.

As an (ex) businessman, I look at squeezing the pips slightly differently.

To me, we improve by being better at what we do, which means cutting out our persistent losses (selections, tipsters, sports) & majoring on what we do best. Imagine how much better our ROI would be if we could do that? Responsibility for the losses is mine. I don't tip anything, but I have to pick & choose what I think will, over time, enhance that ROI.

[horseplayer]

considering how tricky it can be to juggle which to back and which to not i think an roi of 4%+ is very impressive tbh

[tikay]

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

1) The "notional" 'roll is £3,000, hence the current MAX of £150. I suppose, really, we could/should say the ''roll is £3,000 plus or minus profits or losses. The Profits are £2,000 (£1,976.58), so I suppose we could say, if we wished, that our 'roll is £5,000. I'm not entirely sure that is a correct logic train thouigh, it assumes that profit is ploughed back, not taken out as "dividend" as in a business. I'm unsure on the correct line on this.

2) The correct "value". (Of these bets we are discussing). Without knowing that, how do we know we have "value"? The Bookie prices in, say, 10%, so if he quotes 100/1, the correct price needs to be 91/1, does it not? How do we know we have that? There is not enough sample size to prove it as far as I can see. Not saying we don't have it, but you giys (correctly) bang on again & again, VALUE IS THE KEY, but we don't really know the value tonight, do we?

[tikay]

considering how tricky it can be to juggle which to back and which to not i think an roi of 4%+ is very impressive tbh

So do I, but I honestly & truly think we can do better, & I take responsibility for that, as it is me that has to choose which to back, & which to leave. There has to be a "discount", too, because aside from the serious side, I want that we have some laughs & fun along the way.

For now, I want to reach 5%, & in my personal opinion, the easiest way to do that is to major on what we do well (which Tipsters & Sports) & focus on cutting out persistent lossmaking sports, without destroying the Fun Factor.

[tikay]

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

Agree 100%, unless it is with someone who we are restricted with, in which case, we can't even get out of the traps.

Really appreciate all this feedback. Glory be for a troll-free thread.

[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

1) The "notional" 'roll is £3,000, hence the current MAX of £150. I suppose, really, we could/should say the ''roll is £3,000 plus or minus profits or losses. The Profits are £2,000 (£1,976.58), so I suppose we could say, if we wished, that our 'roll is £5,000. I'm not entirely sure that is a correct logic train thouigh, it assumes that profit is ploughed back, not taken out as "dividend" as in a business. I'm unsure on the correct line on this.

2) The correct "value". (Of these bets we are discussing). Without knowing that, how do we know we have "value"? The Bookie prices in, say, 10%, so if he quotes 100/1, the correct price needs to be 91/1, does it not? How do we know we have that? There is not enough sample size to prove it as far as I can see. Not saying we don't have it, but you giys (correctly) bang on again & again, VALUE IS THE KEY, but we don't really know the value tonight, do we?

Them bets are all 100% value for the each way part. Just the betfair markets being illiquid stops me showing exact proof. But I'd bet my life that they are value. We defo have value, I was just wondering how much

[Dubai]

And profits defo go into the roll- otherwise how can businesses expand etc?

[tikay]

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

1) The "notional" 'roll is £3,000, hence the current MAX of £150. I suppose, really, we could/should say the ''roll is £3,000 plus or minus profits or losses. The Profits are £2,000 (£1,976.58), so I suppose we could say, if we wished, that our 'roll is £5,000. I'm not entirely sure that is a correct logic train thouigh, it assumes that profit is ploughed back, not taken out as "dividend" as in a business. I'm unsure on the correct line on this.

2) The correct "value". (Of these bets we are discussing). Without knowing that, how do we know we have "value"? The Bookie prices in, say, 10%, so if he quotes 100/1, the correct price needs to be 91/1, does it not? How do we know we have that? There is not enough sample size to prove it as far as I can see. Not saying we don't have it, but you giys (correctly) bang on again & again, VALUE IS THE KEY, but we don't really know the value tonight, do we?

Them bets are all 100% value for the each way part. Just the betfair markets being illiquid stops me showing exact proof. But I'd bet my life that they are value. We defo have value, I was just wondering how much

Understood & agreed.

Will Betfair have more liquidity nearer match time, or will it never have enough?

Truth to tell, I accept what you say at face value.

[class]

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

1) The "notional" 'roll is £3,000, hence the current MAX of £150. I suppose, really, we could/should say the ''roll is £3,000 plus or minus profits or losses. The Profits are £2,000 (£1,976.58), so I suppose we could say, if we wished, that our 'roll is £5,000. I'm not entirely sure that is a correct logic train thouigh, it assumes that profit is ploughed back, not taken out as "dividend" as in a business. I'm unsure on the correct line on this.

2) The correct "value". (Of these bets we are discussing). Without knowing that, how do we know we have "value"? The Bookie prices in, say, 10%, so if he quotes 100/1, the correct price needs to be 91/1, does it not? How do we know we have that? There is not enough sample size to prove it as far as I can see. Not saying we don't have it, but you giys (correctly) bang on again & again, VALUE IS THE KEY, but we don't really know the value tonight, do we?

Them bets are all 100% value for the each way part. Just the betfair markets being illiquid stops me showing exact proof. But I'd bet my life that they are value. We defo have value, I was just wondering how much

Can you give an example of a bet structure for the FGS bet you asked Redarmi about?

[Tal]

Meetings done, I now have enough time to cover yesterday's chess:

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=58441.msg1741573#msg1741573

Today is a rest day, with play resuming tomorrow.

Those of you who follow Chess Thread (I won't embarrass those involved by naming them both) will have already seen Magnus Carlsen being introduced to the mainstream US TV audience by a feature on Sixty Minutes. For those who haven't seen it, here it is:



Well worth a watch if you get chance. No understanding of chess necessary.

[Dubai]

4 selections- 4 trebles, 1 4fold- all each way = 10 bets
4 selections- 6 doubles, 4 trebles, 1 4fold- all each way= 22 bets

If one of selections isn't starting

3 selection- each way trebles= 2 bets
3 selections- 3 doubles, 1 treble- each way= 8 bets

[Tal]

And here is the crosstable for Tikay:



One more round tomorrow and the fixtures are reversed for the second half, so our man will have 4 games to come with the White pieces; a small edge, but colours matter a little less with Magnus than they do with other players (long story short, Carlsen gets better as the game goes on).

[lee h]

Dubai is correct..they are massive value.

Take Rooney 11/5 to score first 2/9 to score anytime

but each way at 1/3odds UNLIMITED places makes the place part 11/15  (about 8/11 in english)

ven with fairly big margins on the win part ot the bet that has to be massive value

lee

[Tal]

Chess pic of the day is proper nerdy, even by chess pic standards.



Kramnik's pawns (the white ones on the left) are all dead centre of the squares; could not be more aligned if you used a spirit level.

Ivanchuk is less worried about these passing trivialities and his pawns are less rigorously positioned.

Lesson: don't leave the toilet seat up at Kramnik's house.

[tikay]

Chess pic of the day is proper nerdy, even by chess pic standards.



Kramnik's pawns (the white ones on the left) are all dead centre of the squares; could not be more aligned if you used a spirit level.

Ivanchuk is less worried about these passing trivialities and his pawns are less rigorously positioned.

Lesson: don't leave the toilet seat up at Kramnik's house.

Even his pen is dead straight, on the notepad.

There is a touch of Tighty in that OCD-ness. Love it.