Tips for Tikay

[hector62]

Short and brief today. Nadal wins 1st set 7-5.

[bobby1]

Short and brief today. Nadal wins 1st set 7-5.

Is that the book Nadal is reading?

[redarmi]

Guys - be VERY careful in interpreting those stats. Sample size is key, & we don't have that.

We only have one sport with anything even remotely approaching a half-decent sample size - football.

I thought this maybe the case. I admit I have no clue about picking winners but love the thought process especially when it's something that is plain obvious. Phil Taylor's opponents averages increase when they play him because they don't get to throw at many doubles springs to mind.

Yeah one thing to bear in mind is that getting a representative sample size is going to be different in every sport too.  In golf and horseracing you could easily have 200 bets and still not be anywhere close to having a proper idea about how profitable you are whether you are winning or losing.  On sports like football, basketball and NFL after a hundred bets you have an idea.  In the short and medium term the best guide is not your profit and loss but the difference between the price you take and the closing show on betfair.  If you are consistently taking a price that is bigger than the closing show then you will win in the long run.

[tikay]

Short and brief today. Nadal wins 1st set 7-5.

How many sets do we need to win?

I emphasise sets, following that dreadfully embarrassing moment yesterday when Vince committed that golfing faux-paus. Hole "tied", indeed. He clearly needs to be confined to municipal courses.

[hector62]

The semi finals were best of 3 sets so I am assuming it is the same for this, but I wouldn't bet on it. Nadal 2-0 up in the 2nd and maybe final set.

[tikay]

Guys - be VERY careful in interpreting those stats. Sample size is key, & we don't have that.

We only have one sport with anything even remotely approaching a half-decent sample size - football.

I thought this maybe the case. I admit I have no clue about picking winners but love the thought process especially when it's something that is plain obvious. Phil Taylor's opponents averages increase when they play him because they don't get to throw at many doubles springs to mind.

Yeah one thing to bear in mind is that getting a representative sample size is going to be different in every sport too.  In golf and horseracing you could easily have 200 bets and still not be anywhere close to having a proper idea about how profitable you are whether you are winning or losing.  On sports like football, basketball and NFL after a hundred bets you have an idea.  In the short and medium term the best guide is not your profit and loss but the difference between the price you take and the closing show on betfair.  If you are consistently taking a price that is bigger than the closing show then you will win in the long run.

Agree entirely.

Golf was way bottom a week ago, for example, but it's high-variance stuff, one winner can change everything, so I was not troubled by that. Sample size is woeful, too.

I like that idea whereby we measure against the closing price on Betfair, but have no idea how we would do that, time constraints & all that.

I half wish I had not published the stats now, I would not wish them to be mis-interpreted, but equally, they fascinate me.

The ROI stats are completely different, by the way, but again, suffer from woefully inadequate sample size.

I really like, though, the ongoing process of self-examination, to see what can be learned. Basketball, for instance, bothers me a lot. I think you said last week we need a 55% success rate, or somesuch, & I would be very surprised if we could beat that by much, if at all. In fact I'd go further - in Basketball, using handicaps, I reckon we'd be as likely to succeed if we simply flipped a coin on the outcome each time, heads or tails, & bet accordingly. This is NOT a pop at our basketbally corry's, I'm just thinking out loud. And very probably talking out of a rear orifice.

[tikay]

Nadal is wearing an orange shirt!

WTF? Do they have no standards now?

That's a disgrace. We wear white we do the tennis. White. White shirt, shorts, socks, & plimsolls, please.

[tikay]

The semi finals were best of 3 sets so I am assuming it is the same for this, but I wouldn't bet on it. Nadal 2-0 up in the 2nd and maybe final set.

I think it is a 5 legger setter.

[MereNovice]

Nadal is wearing an orange shirt!

WTF? Do they have no standards now?

That's a disgrace. We wear white we do the tennis. White. White shirt, shorts, socks, & plimsolls, please.

I'd say that it was more peach than orange.

[tikay]

Nadal is wearing an orange shirt!

WTF? Do they have no standards now?

That's a disgrace. We wear white we do the tennis. White. White shirt, shorts, socks, & plimsolls, please.

I'd say that it was more peach than orange.

Settle for fruit-hued?

[MereNovice]

The semi finals were best of 3 sets so I am assuming it is the same for this, but I wouldn't bet on it. Nadal 2-0 up in the 2nd and maybe final set.

I think it is a 5 legger setter.

3 sets.

Only grand slam events have 5 sets on "The Tour".

[bobby1]

Guys - be VERY careful in interpreting those stats. Sample size is key, & we don't have that.

We only have one sport with anything even remotely approaching a half-decent sample size - football.

I thought this maybe the case. I admit I have no clue about picking winners but love the thought process especially when it's something that is plain obvious. Phil Taylor's opponents averages increase when they play him because they don't get to throw at many doubles springs to mind.

Yeah one thing to bear in mind is that getting a representative sample size is going to be different in every sport too.  In golf and horseracing you could easily have 200 bets and still not be anywhere close to having a proper idea about how profitable you are whether you are winning or losing.  On sports like football, basketball and NFL after a hundred bets you have an idea.  In the short and medium term the best guide is not your profit and loss but the difference between the price you take and the closing show on betfair.  If you are consistently taking a price that is bigger than the closing show then you will win in the long run.

Agree entirely.

Golf was way bottom a week ago, for example, but it's high-variance stuff, one winner can change everything, so I was not troubled by that. Sample size is woeful, too.

I like that idea whereby we measure against the closing price on Betfair, but have no idea how we would do that, time constraints & all that.

I half wish I had not published the stats now, I would not wish them to be mis-interpreted, but equally, they fascinate me.

The ROI stats are completely different, by the way, but again, suffer from woefully inadequate sample size.

I really like, though, the ongoing process of self-examination, to see what can be learned. Basketball, for instance, bothers me a lot. I think you said last week we need a 55% success rate, or somesuch, & I would be very surprised if we could beat that by much, if at all. In fact I'd go further - in Basketball, using handicaps, I reckon we'd be as likely to succeed if we simply flipped a coin on the outcome each time, heads or tails, & bet accordingly. This is NOT a pop at our basketbally corry's, I'm just thinking out loud. And very probably talking out of a rear orifice.

I think it will take a lot of months/years even to really have a sample size to make any findings relevant but Red is right, judging the bets on what the lines/prices are on the off is the best way to show where you are getting value. If you make a call and the price is bigger than you bet it at then you have got the feel for the market wrong. The results you cannot affect but the spots you get in you can.

Take the Sneds golf bet this week,( which I am still fuming about), in the cold light if day sitting here now would you want to have your money against a guy that has lost his clubs and is playing with only 11 clubs in his makeshift set when he starts his round against a player with a good matchplay record?

The spot was good, the price was good and it got hammered. If you have backed Sneds and were told afterwards what had happened you would feel like you got away with one. I made an absolute bollox of the run  in to the US golf last night and got right out of jail, its in the books as a profit but I know deep down it was a complete mess and I just got v v lucky.

So which was the better spot, the Sneds bet or the big difference I had between the only two golfers that could win last night, the best one was a loss and the worst one was a winner but if I was going to make a choice between which spot I wanted to be in again today, I would take the Sneds bet every time.

It will take ages to work thru enough bets on each sport to work out how many of each situation we had on that sport.

[hector62]

Winner winner chicken diner.

7-5  6-3 to Nadal.

[bobby1]

Winner winner chicken diner.

7-5  6-3 to Nadal.

well done mate

[tikay]

Winner winner chicken diner.

7-5  6-3 to Nadal.

You are on FIRE hector, on a proper roll.

AND, unless I'm mistaken, with no further action likely today, that ensures a profit on the day, assuming England get out of it at Lords.

Well done, & thanks.