Tips for Tikay

[horseplayer]

"Probably the market thought QPR's desperate need to win the match against a team with zero to play for was a massive positive."

This is another excellent point by the camel, especially as we head to the end of the season we will see teams with nothing to play for facing sides that are near the bottom of there league. Generally speaking the reason teams are down the bottom (or near it) is because they are not very good, the days of a team lying down for another (in england at least) have long gone with prize money so important.

[tikay]

Vince,

You stuck up a cricket bet @9am today, and I clean forgot about it, sorry.

I just went to put it on, and the price had drifted to 3.45 (you quoted 2.7 I think).

I now gather that it has already begun, and AustralIa are 201-3......

Another lucky swerve.

Unless you say otherwise, I will not get on now.

Sorry I missed it. Sort of.

[bobby1]

Just chance to log on for a few minutes .....

Im afraid the price has been taken this morning ,Im on WBA at 4-6  but certainly no value betting them shorter.

The bet may well win, but as a long term strategy we need to bet at the right price so best to leave alone now .

Nice to see some positive results all round yesterday

Karma

That's a perfect example of price dictating the bet, at 1.66 that Fraser suggested last night you would have got a great bet, it went off around 1.51. If you keep getting into those spots then you are doing very well.

By not betting it at the 'right price' on the off you are saying 'I would have backed this because it was value, but now I can no longer get that price the prices available now are not value, so I will leave it'

It got beaten but the thought process by Fraser before hand and yours by deciding the price dictated it was no bet is good all round.

[tikay]

Thanks Phil.

I'm learning. Slowly.

In truth, conditioned by this thread, the moment I saw the price had gone, I instantly decided "no bet".

[bobby1]

Great stuff re the Wigan bet from Dazzler and Keith and Fraser with Sunderland. Dog house for me with the Rochdale bet but I think it's worth highlighting something that I think is being missed which AD touches on all the time and something that Mond posted too.

Keith knows I am not saying this to be rude, it is just to make a point. The Sunderland bet he suggested on Weds wasn't a good bet come Saturday afternoon  because the price had lengthened by 22 ticks from evens to 2.22 and that was with Sunderland picking a good team.

I am not sure what price the Wigan DNB went off but when I last looked it was  slightly shorter than suggested. If the aim is to make money then beating the price is essential in the long run and staking the correct % of the roll is just as important.

I think Mond said if the 1k is lost you will just pull up some more, that's a frightening way to think of your money imo coz it doesn't make the bets you are having important. Having 200 from a roll of about 600-700 is deffo a bad stake if it wins or loses because in the long run you  will need to back a winner every time you have a big % of your roll on one event. It was almost a 'lets try to dig us into profit' which isn't the way to look at it.

We all play poker and know that the big difference between winning and just playing is decision making a lot of the time. If you got your money in bad and won it doesn't change the fact you got your money in bad. If you get your money in good and get beaten you have done everything right and lost, in the long run getting the right side is the most important thing in both poker and betting.

I am aware this might look like I am trying to diss the winning bets as I am going to put up an example from Saturday using the Sunderland bet and the Rochdale bet.( you can flame me if you think it looks like I am trying to back up the selection I made which lost)

At one stage in the early afternoon the Roichdale bet I took 1.99 on was trading at 1.77 with Pinny, that is a huge difference in price on an Asian handicap. At that time the Sunderland price was trading at 2.22 which is again a big difference if you are on at evens.

The Rochdale price drifted back out again nearer kick off but still went off well under the price it was backed but I am using the 1.77 to illustrate the point

The key is to ask this question Tony. At that moment was your best bet the Sunderland one at 2.0, that was 2.22 or the Rochdale bet at 1.99 which had touched as short as 1.77.

After the event is known to look at the bets and say 'that one was good because it won' is a mistake. The trick is not to get worried about the selections winning or losing coz in the end if you keep beating the price you will win, if the sample size is big enough. If you have too much of your roll on too many events you wont ever get a sample size that is big enough to find out.

be gentle Keith!!

I think it's important to look back at selections and see what I did wrong in ana attempt to not make that mistake in the future.

Obviously 2.0 about Sunderland was a bad bet.

Why?

Well, the inital drift was probably because of the chance of Sunderland playing a weakened team.

But after the teams were announced, why did the drift continue?

Possibly I had underestimated the poor recent form Sunderland had been in.. I mentioned the poor display at Blackburn, but they had also been thrashed at West Brom and were lucky to escape with a point from Newcastle.

The market might have thought replacing Barton with Mackie was a positive too.

Probably the market thought QPR's desperate need to win the match against a team with zero to play for was a massive positive.

As it happens, QPR performed exactly as I expected.. little spark and looking pretty tired throughout the team. Sunderland however, were significantly worse than I expected. Sessignon was back, but he didn't look the same player who was ripping teams apart earlier in the season. perhaps even though they had a strong team out, they very much had one eye on Tuesday. They were average at best and a half decent team would have beaten them comfortably. My missus came to only her fourth ever game and said (just before Sunderland opened the scoring) " This is Premier League football? Both these teams are rubbish!"

I still think it was an excellent spot to oppose QPR. But opposing them at Sunderland might not have been the best place to do it.

It's a brilliant post and something everyone that bets needs to do, if you bet a winner ask yourself if you got the right side of the bet, even tho it won you deffo need to look back. If it loses do the same. Win or lose you are getting a lot of benefit from doing this.

The real point tho is this, if your roll is big enough that you are betting a small % of it on every bet then you can play the long game and be happy that you have beaten the price on plenty of occasions. The result of one bet shouldn't make the difference, no bet should be more important than another one.

Another thing to think about too is if your roll was now 1100 or 1200 you would have been doing very well, if you make a long term profit of 5% of turnover you are doing well.

[bobby1]

"Probably the market thought QPR's desperate need to win the match against a team with zero to play for was a massive positive."

This is another excellent point by the camel, especially as we head to the end of the season we will see teams with nothing to play for facing sides that are near the bottom of there league. Generally speaking the reason teams are down the bottom (or near it) is because they are not very good, the days of a team lying down for another (in england at least) have long gone with prize money so important.

I deffo lean towards your thinking Horse but again I think both situations happen. If you had a group of say 12 matches near the end of the season that are priced up with a 'need to win' angle then some of those games will still play out as they would have done at any other stage of the season. Some of them tho will be won by the team that needs to win..

When pricing them up pre game tho you have to allow for the fact that some of those games do end up going the way of the need to win team because the other team are taking it easier, but the trick is to price it up with a balanced view that 'need to win' MIGHT make a difference but won't in all the games.

In short you couldn't price up the game as if it was just a normal match because you have to anticipate to what extent it isn't in the prices pre game. The trick there too is once you see the travelling squads/team news  before the game you will have a better idea of teams that are taking it easy and ones that aren't.


Look at Brighton's run in last season, it was clear once they had wrapped up the league that their need to win had gone and they just coasted in, some teams that are mid table do that too, but not all of them.

[bobby1]

If you can make ROI of 5% on Premiership handicaps long-term you should be a multi-millionaire.

deffo, I know a guy that won 6% on Asians in one full season, the good thing is he understood that was unsustainable long term and just continued the same way.

I once backed 16 out of 16 NFL winners at the start of one season and then went 3 of 9 after that, overall I had gone 19 winners from 25 bets, if I had started thinking I had cracked it at 16 from 16 and began to bet more and more I would probably have ended up losing because the bigger bets are now far more important than the regular bets were.

[Simon Galloway]

Obviously 2.0 about Sunderland was a bad bet.

In trading parlance, it was a bad fill, not a bad bet.  The "upstairs" guys may have done the analysis correctly and decided that 4/6 was the true price and therefore even money was a solid bet.  It then gets passed "downstairs" onto the trading floor for execution of the order.  Those guys should have realised that whilst 2.0 was immediately available, market sentiment meant that they should hold out for 2.2 and filled the order at a better price.

[adnmdv]

No it was a bad bet, the true price we know now was nowhere near 4/6.

[Simon Galloway]

I picked 4/6 out of thin air.

Was the "true" price worse than evs?

[Dubai]

Awaits the true price in Asia......

[MANTIS01]

I'm dubious about the "need to win" variable in sports betting. Those teams in say the EPL relegation zone have needed to win all season and they are in the drop zone because form-wise they haven't been able to win when they've needed to. It's just at the end they REALLY need to win. That means there is an increase in pressure to perform and it is hard to know how losing teams will react under even more pressure than before. Often it stifles creativity with players afraid to make mistakes and the mood inside stadiums will often be tense and add to the pressure. I don't really believe the extra pressure will lead a team to baulk the form they have shown all season and start playing winning football all of a sudden. They might of course but there's nothing concrete to suggest they will.

Teams/people who don't need to win can often play better without such pressure. Also, you have to factor players/managers seeking new deals/transfers and professional pride/playing for the fans etc which will still make players want to perform for their side even thou they don't need to win. I think the need to win scenario is a romantic notion which wont really translate into betting value. The extra pressure of needing to win is hindering Man City who looked quite abject yesterday vs an inferior team who didn't need to win. Since the EPL started the team bottom at Christmas has always been relegated except for one season because when teams need to start winning they can't.

[EvilPie]

Keith’s Sunderland suggestion absolutely coasted home, no sweat at all. I had actually pressed for another £100, as suggested by Fraser, but later rescinded, & instead, took it on my own (off thread) account. No regrets, it was my big mistake to invest so much of a tiny ‘roll. Sorry Fraser, but it was still a win!

The start of a slippery slope?

[EvilPie]

Brilliant stuff on Wigan. Extremely solid bet on Sunderland

Well done on both guys

 

great stuff. When and how much does Tony have to start winning before he hits problems getting bets on?

From my limited understanding if he stays away from horses he'll probably be ok.

I'm pretty sure that most of these bets are in markets where his wins are covered by other's losses. The Wigan coup for example probably made the bookies a fortune.

I can't see how he'll get noticed for a while betting on so many different random things.

[Horneris]

If a team has been given an Asian Handicap then one of their players will be replaced by a small Chinese man with no arms to level up the playing field.