Tips for Tikay

[tikay]

Fine Post, & much to agree with.

"Fun"?

I've emphasised all along that I will make sure we have a few fun bets, & constantly encouraged peope to post them up.

But part of the whole idea - as I understand it, anyway - is to learn a little as we go along. And the biggest lesson I have learned - or I think I have - is how important it is to recognise, & get, value.

I'll still encourage the quirky fun bets, I love them, but unless I have read it all wrong, in the main, we must keep trying to get value, which we are doing quite consistently now, by beating the value price frequently. (Chelsea was a good example).

I will not place any "recommend" where no "value price" has been quoted. And, more & more, I use Oddschecker EVERY time, to see if I can squeeze a bit more value somewhere. 

Not enough "banzai"? Maybe, yes, I take your point, but the worry is, a lot of folks blindly follow what goes off on here, & we have to be a bit responsible, imo.

I can tell you for abso sure, though, I now often have bets "off-thread", because I want a little "banzai bet" now & then, but if I step out of line on-thread, the Elders get right on my case! And I think they should, thats half the idea, no? As long as its done sensibly, in a civil tone & nobody gets arsey, it's fine. I've had more bollockings from Camel & "addy" than enough here!

So I don't tell them about the off thread fun.....

I'm bound to say, when the thread started, I was in EXACTLY the place you are - an old-school gambler. I think I do it better now though, & I find that quite satisfying. We have punted for around three months, & not lost a penny-piece, simply because we have kept the discipline. I'd love to find a way of just nicking a few bob every week when I stop working, & earning, money, & I think I might just. I've gambled since I left school, fwiw, until around 10 years ago. I doubt I've ofteh managed 3 whole months without losing though!

We'll try & keep the fun & banzai stuff, but I do think we must also emphasise the importance of value.

Fine post by you, which hit a lot of notes.

[tikay]

I do agree but I'd rather not bet against what I think will happen just because the price might be right.  Arsenal are in great form, especially at home and Wigan aren't great on the road, they're not great full stop.  I think I'd need huge odds to tempt me.   Ace had it about right in that bards game when their opposition were about 25/1, that'd do it for me. I'd be happier backing arsenal at 1.29 than Wigan
 
Just my opinion anyway. I'm probably bottom of the chain when it comes to gambling skills so if others think its a bit of value then good luck (not too much though )

It's good debate, Graham, but that's the point - if the price is right it IS value. The "if" is the imponderable, of course.

I'm not saying it is right, & wise judges have said it is not, but it seems to me that no matter how big an underdog is in ANY game, there must always be a price at which it reps "value". Arsenal would thrash Wigan, on current Emirates form, x times in 10. If we can find better odds than x in 10, it's value.

Assume it is 9 times in 10. If the price were 16/1, it would be a bet, yes? But we'd have to punt it each time to realise the equity, & we might go skint by then..... 

Yes there's always going to be a "price", but only if you're able to bet it each and every time it comes around no?  Theoretically with Arsenal v Wigan you may have to wait nine or ten years for the "ONE" match where we do get paid off.  With something like the mighty Arsenal playing Wigan and the size of our bank roll do we really have the funds to keep taking the value price until our ship comes in?  

Arsenal for the record have not lost to Wigan at home since they came into the Premier League in 2005 (eight games including a couple of Carling Cup games).  Arsenal also haven't lost a home Monday night game in that same period.

This is my favourite thread on blonde, but I think there's too much focus on finding the value price and doing things properly and not enough "banzai" I feel it in my guts old school gambling.  It's supposed to be fun. FUN! It's too much like being at school sometimes with all this maths and stuff I don't understand. Eeking out the teeny tiniest bit of value is great if you've got £10k on and bills to pay and each pt is worth another £400 to you, but if you've got £10 on and it's only worth an extra 40p it's hardly worth the effort.

Arsenal ought to win fairly comfortably tonight. They're 9/10 in their last Premier League games. Robin van Persie has ended his mini draught and has scored 45 from 50 games. Theo has scored in three of the last four. Arsenal are averaging nearly 3.5 goals per home game since losing to Man Yoo in late January.  With this in mind I'd like to propose £40 Arsenal -2 goals @ 7/4 on the handicaps.  As Barry Norman used to say, and why not?

I missed that bit, sorry!

Lets have a look......

Do you mean this?

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/arsenal-v-wigan/asian-handicap

[WarBwastard]

I do agree but I'd rather not bet against what I think will happen just because the price might be right.  Arsenal are in great form, especially at home and Wigan aren't great on the road, they're not great full stop.  I think I'd need huge odds to tempt me.   Ace had it about right in that bards game when their opposition were about 25/1, that'd do it for me. I'd be happier backing arsenal at 1.29 than Wigan
 
Just my opinion anyway. I'm probably bottom of the chain when it comes to gambling skills so if others think its a bit of value then good luck (not too much though )

It's good debate, Graham, but that's the point - if the price is right it IS value. The "if" is the imponderable, of course.

I'm not saying it is right, & wise judges have said it is not, but it seems to me that no matter how big an underdog is in ANY game, there must always be a price at which it reps "value". Arsenal would thrash Wigan, on current Emirates form, x times in 10. If we can find better odds than x in 10, it's value.

Assume it is 9 times in 10. If the price were 16/1, it would be a bet, yes? But we'd have to punt it each time to realise the equity, & we might go skint by then.....  

Yes there's always going to be a "price", but only if you're able to bet it each and every time it comes around no?  Theoretically with Arsenal v Wigan you may have to wait nine or ten years for the "ONE" match where we do get paid off.  With something like the mighty Arsenal playing Wigan and the size of our bank roll do we really have the funds to keep taking the value price until our ship comes in?  

Arsenal for the record have not lost to Wigan at home since they came into the Premier League in 2005 (eight games including a couple of Carling Cup games).  Arsenal also haven't lost a home Monday night game in that same period.

This is my favourite thread on blonde, but I think there's too much focus on finding the value price and doing things properly and not enough "banzai" I feel it in my guts old school gambling.  It's supposed to be fun. FUN! It's too much like being at school sometimes with all this maths and stuff I don't understand. Eeking out the teeny tiniest bit of value is great if you've got £10k on and bills to pay and each pt is worth another £400 to you, but if you've got £10 on and it's only worth an extra 40p it's hardly worth the effort.

Arsenal ought to win fairly comfortably tonight. They're 9/10 in their last Premier League games. Robin van Persie has ended his mini draught and has scored 45 from 50 games. Theo has scored in three of the last four. Arsenal are averaging nearly 3.5 goals per home game since losing to Man Yoo in late January.  With this in mind I'd like to propose £40 Arsenal -2 goals @ 7/4 on the handicaps.   As Barry Norman used to say, and why not?

I missed that bit, sorry!

Lets have a look......

Do you mean this?

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/arsenal-v-wigan/asian-handicap

Don't worry about the Banzai bit, I was just being daft.  I have also learned a lot and want the thread to carry on as long as possible.  The thinking of some of the gamblesmiths on here is amazing.  But hmmm,,,when you're talking about in some cases find value to the second decimal place, do we have a bank roll to warrant that level of research for our wagers? This is a question not a statement.  I'm wondering if you can sort of naval-gaze when it comes to finding value.  Like taking pot-odds in poker, sometimes the odds don't really matter.  Is it the same with gambling? For example if someone offered us 30/1 on Wigan tonight, that would represent value, but if we only had £20 is it worth How big is our bank roll compared to the pros where eking out value is that necessary?  

Enough questions.


The Arsenal bet was not Asian handicaps incidentally. Goal handicaps. Basically Arsenal have to win by three clear goals.  To be fair I don't see this one getting past the elders.

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/arsenal-v-wigan/handicaps

[tikay]

Gotcha, as to value, bankroll size, and tonights match.

In reality, I'm not qualified to answer any of the questions really, but it's interesting stuff to throw around.

Thanks for clarifying tonight's bet, and the Oddschecker link.

I'll go have a bimble.

[Ant040689]

I allow myself banzai bets as it were occasionally and its mainly when there is nothing much else on that day and i really fancy a bet and i have to make do. Normally on a Saturday i can pick out something nice as there is a big selection of football.

But for today, I have put 400 dollars on Wigan + 1.5 asian handicap at 2.2, which I believe is effectively the complete opposite of what WarBwastard is proposing. I hope i am not out of it early doors when it kicks off.

Wouldn't touch this bet normally, its a bit of a punt. Anything that i propose to you formally Tikay is my best work, whatever that is.

[bobby1]

I do agree but I'd rather not bet against what I think will happen just because the price might be right.  Arsenal are in great form, especially at home and Wigan aren't great on the road, they're not great full stop.  I think I'd need huge odds to tempt me.   Ace had it about right in that bards game when their opposition were about 25/1, that'd do it for me. I'd be happier backing arsenal at 1.29 than Wigan
 
Just my opinion anyway. I'm probably bottom of the chain when it comes to gambling skills so if others think its a bit of value then good luck (not too much though )

This is how a lot of people that bet on football approach having a bet Silo, they look at the fixture, think X will win here and then stick them in their bet at 2/7 coz they think they will win. There isn't any thought into what price are this team to actually win today given all the info around this one game.

Have you ever had a bet on something that you don't fancy because when you looked at the odds they were bigger than you thought they would be?

We used to use this example when interviewing people for jobs. It was a way of finding out if they understood the process beyond 'this is what I think is right' and turning that into 'the odds of something happening are the most important thing in dictating a decision'

I have three boxes, one of them has a cash prize in it and you have no info at all which box it is in. You are making a decision using your gut reaction as to which box to choose.

You choose box number 1 for no other reason than you fancied that might be the one. I now have boxes numbered 2 and 3. I then give you some more information and tell you that it deffo isn't in box 2. This now leaves us with your box 1 against my box 3.

I then ask if you want to exchange boxes,so the question now is do you stick with the box you originally took, or do you swap it for box 3?

[millidonk]

I do agree but I'd rather not bet against what I think will happen just because the price might be right.  Arsenal are in great form, especially at home and Wigan aren't great on the road, they're not great full stop.  I think I'd need huge odds to tempt me.   Ace had it about right in that bards game when their opposition were about 25/1, that'd do it for me. I'd be happier backing arsenal at 1.29 than Wigan
 
Just my opinion anyway. I'm probably bottom of the chain when it comes to gambling skills so if others think its a bit of value then good luck (not too much though )

This is how a lot of people that bet on football approach having a bet Silo, they look at the fixture, think X will win here and then stick them in their bet at 2/7 coz they think they will win. There isn't any thought into what price are this team to actually win today given all the info around this one game.

Have you ever had a bet on something that you don't fancy because when you looked at the odds they were bigger than you thought they would be?

We used to use this example when interviewing people for jobs. It was a way of finding out if they understood the process beyond 'this is what I think is right' and turning that into 'the odds of something happening are the most important thing in dictating a decision'

I have three boxes, one of them has a cash prize in it and you have no info at all which box it is in. You are making a decision using your gut reaction as to which box to choose.

You choose box number 1 for no other reason than you fancied that might be the one. I now have boxes numbered 2 and 3 and then tell you that it deffo isn't in box 2. This now leaves us with your box 1 against my box 3.

I then ask if you want to exchange boxes,so the question now is do you stick with the box you originally took, or do you swap it for box 3?

Oh no. Floodgates opened. It is said that you now MUST change your answer as you have a 50% shot as opposed to a 33% shot. Usually starts all sorts of debates.

[RickBFA]

I have a question for Bobby1 or anyone with the knowledge.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned needing a larger sample of bets to cut out the effects of variance and to establish whether a strategy was really profitable.

Is there a timescale/number of bets where you can safely think variance can be discounted as a factor?

As an example, my spreadsheet since logging bets and betting on single football matches in a disciplined fashion has 191 entries. Would 500 bets or a 1000 bets give you a clear picture of real success or failure??

[Graham C]

I'm not adverse to putting against the odds, perhaps the trouble is that I don't do it often enough.  Last time I went on a massive outsider (Grand National aside) was probably Ace2M's post to oppose Barca at about 25/1.  What I struggle with is why it's always about the odds.  If the price was right would you back me to beat Rooney in a penatly shootout competition?  It's never going to happen and the 1000/1 that you'd get on me just isn't value.  The Arsenal game isn't the same but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Arsenal will win tonight and also plenty of it to suggest Wigan won't.   Why not look for a better value bet that's more likely to come in?

Tikay mentioned (using 11/1 as an example) that you'd bet on Wigan to win 1 out of the 11 times to make it a bet where you'd break even.  The other 10 times if I'm backing Arsenal (even at 1.3), aren't I massively head over the course of the 11 games assuming my stake is a fixed amount?  Actually that's not worded right, but at backing Wigan at £10 to win £110, you're break even over the 11 games, backing Arsenal at 1.3 for £10 each time would return £20 profit over the 11 games (10 wins for £3 - £10 loss on the 11th game) - I know I've worded this badly but I hope you can get my thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against you doing whatever you think is right.  I more asking the question as to why it's correct.  As I said before, I'm certainly bottom of the food chain when it comes to these things but I think I'm learning a lot from this thread (I'm certainly enjoying it), but I do struggle to see how swimming against the tide (now there's a thread) is a good thing when it's such a strong current you're swimming against.

[hector62]

This thread has overtaken Red Dogs diary as the one i check out first whenever I enter the forum. Thought processes, value betting and gut instincts on all types of potential bets being thoroughly debated, before an old man has to make the decisions- terrific stuff.

On Saturday I recommended a bet, on a draw in a  rugby match, that the vast majority of the time was going to lose. I did it in the belief that the price was far too high. Of course it did lose but I am happy to have recommended it. I did however say to only wager £10 as bankroll management in all forms of gambling is even more important than seeking value.

So the recommendation to back Wigan to beat Arsenal to my mind is not an awful choice at 9-1. I like the fact that Wigan are fighting for their premiership survival, and have found some form. Also going for the bet is the fact that Arsenal are relatively clear in 3rd place and won't be getting 2nd, and the also that even at my advanced age I would still fancy myself to get a place in Arsenals central defence.

However, like my draw bet the amount to bet is important and  and I would hate to see Tikay investing more than £20 on a bet that like mine is more than likely going to be a loser. Is the bet value? Well on that " I haven't got a scooby!"

Now time to check out and see if that man who's wife recently died can win the UKIPT.

[millidonk]

I'm not adverse to putting against the odds, perhaps the trouble is that I don't do it often enough.  Last time I went on a massive outsider (Grand National aside) was probably Ace2M's post to oppose Barca at about 25/1.  What I struggle with is why it's always about the odds.  If the price was right would you back me to beat Rooney in a penatly shootout competition?  It's never going to happen and the 1000/1 that you'd get on me just isn't value.  The Arsenal game isn't the same but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Arsenal will win tonight and also plenty of it to suggest Wigan won't.   Why not look for a better value bet that's more likely to come in?

Tikay mentioned (using 11/1 as an example) that you'd bet on Wigan to win 1 out of the 11 times to make it a bet where you'd break even.  The other 10 times if I'm backing Arsenal (even at 1.3), aren't I massively head over the course of the 11 games assuming my stake is a fixed amount?  Actually that's not worded right, but at backing Wigan at £10 to win £110, you're break even over the 11 games, backing Arsenal at 1.3 for £10 each time would return £20 profit over the 11 games (10 wins for £3 - £10 loss on the 11th game) - I know I've worded this badly but I hope you can get my thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against you doing whatever you think is right.  I more asking the question as to why it's correct.  As I said before, I'm certainly bottom of the food chain when it comes to these things but I think I'm learning a lot from this thread (I'm certainly enjoying it), but I do struggle to see how swimming against the tide (now there's a thread) is a good thing when it's such a strong current you're swimming against.

I agree with this way of thinking, apart from say when the price of Wigan is 11-1 as we have here, but in reality we think they are likely to win one in every 7 matches, so their true odds should be 7-1, then we have some nice value. The hard bit is determining what their true odds should be. Thats when all sorts of factors and people much shrewder than I come in.

[bobby1]

I'm not adverse to putting against the odds, perhaps the trouble is that I don't do it often enough.  Last time I went on a massive outsider (Grand National aside) was probably Ace2M's post to oppose Barca at about 25/1.  What I struggle with is why it's always about the odds.  If the price was right would you back me to beat Rooney in a penatly shootout competition?  It's never going to happen and the 1000/1 that you'd get on me just isn't value.  The Arsenal game isn't the same but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Arsenal will win tonight and also plenty of it to suggest Wigan won't.   Why not look for a better value bet that's more likely to come in?

Tikay mentioned (using 11/1 as an example) that you'd bet on Wigan to win 1 out of the 11 times to make it a bet where you'd break even.  The other 10 times if I'm backing Arsenal (even at 1.3), aren't I massively head over the course of the 11 games assuming my stake is a fixed amount?  Actually that's not worded right, but at backing Wigan at £10 to win £110, you're break even over the 11 games, backing Arsenal at 1.3 for £10 each time would return £20 profit over the 11 games (10 wins for £3 - £10 loss on the 11th game) - I know I've worded this badly but I hope you can get my thinking.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against you doing whatever you think is right.  I more asking the question as to why it's correct.  As I said before, I'm certainly bottom of the food chain when it comes to these things but I think I'm learning a lot from this thread (I'm certainly enjoying it), but I do struggle to see how swimming against the tide (now there's a thread) is a good thing when it's such a strong current you're swimming against.

hi mate.

Tony added me to the people that had been against the Wigan bet in his post, I think he made a misread as I didn't post anything( I blame his new glasses).

I wasn't really thinking solely about the Arsenal v Wigan game but the example above is a good one regarding your post about betting against what you originally think would happen against the odds available on those things happening.

When you choose box 1 to start with you are 1/2 to be wrong and 2/1 to be right. Then when you get past what your initial choice was and used the information you have gleaned afterwards. (That it isn't in box 2) you are now getting a chance to take box three at evens ( box 3 was one of the two selections that were priced at 1/2  after you had selected originally, and I have taken the other one away)

 So by picking box 1 first when you had a worse idea of the odds and were a big outsider to pick the right box, you are now in a position to take box three which you know it is more likely to be in.

The reason we asked that question is to see if the person answering actually understood that having a view of something still needs to be converted into prices, then having a chance to use the extra information they had gathered to form a new opinion and convert that into the new odds.









 

[bobby1]

Some people counter argue that there are now 2 boxes left, so they are both now evens to be right. the best way to over egg it is If you extrapolate the example to 10 boxes and you take box 1. I then have 9 boxes and take 2 to 8 away leaving just box 9, so it is now your box 1 v my box 9. You have got a massive amount of extra info since you made your first choice and because of that the odds are now massively in your favour to take box 9.

[bobby1]

I allow myself banzai bets as it were occasionally and its mainly when there is nothing much else on that day and i really fancy a bet and i have to make do. Normally on a Saturday i can pick out something nice as there is a big selection of football.

But for today, I have put 400 dollars on Wigan + 1.5 asian handicap at 2.2, which I believe is effectively the complete opposite of what WarBwastard is proposing. I hope i am not out of it early doors when it kicks off.

Wouldn't touch this bet normally, its a bit of a punt. Anything that i propose to you formally Tikay is my best work, whatever that is.

I love the phrase 'banzai bet'. abs nowt wrong with that kind of bet too, but its bad if you are having the same amount on your banzai bet as you would have on a proper bet. My Grand National bets would deffo be Banzai, but I would have about 2% on those bets that I would have on a proper bet.

[Graham C]

I'm lost by all the recent box talk, I get the argument for it, but I also assume that your boxes are all the same and have the same value which makes it a whole different discussion.