Tips for Tikay

[The Camel]

Hills are 5/1 about the Day 1 Fourballs finishing 2-2.

Massive price. Recommend £40 if they'll let you have it. True price imo more like 11/4. Possibility they will cry palp but not really much justification if they do so, they're just ool.

I need to get my head round that.

On paper, only three results possible? 4-0, 3-1, 2-2, yes? And they go 5/1?

Assuming they are not stupid, that seems totally wrong, unless there any orther factors we should include?

2.5-1.5 3.5-0.5 also both possible.

remember the drawn matches/half points

Ahh yes. So 9 possible outcomes, as the market includes both sides winning scores.

Why is 2-2 a 5/2 shot then?

Owing to the number of different ways in which it can occur.

Ahh.....

Bear with me, I'll get there eventually. Maybe.....

aren't the 1.5/2.5 scores too long?  I might have messed up the combis but I calced that there were 81 poss scores and 16 of these were 1.5/2.5 and 16 2.5/1.5  ------ i.e 20%.  The prices are 5-1 to 6-1 with PP.

The fact there has to be one or three ties for it to finish 2.3 - 1.5 makes it slightly less likely than a whole number as ties are about 3/1 shots?

[doubleup]

win win draw lose is 2.5/1.5

my brain goes a bit fuzzy with these combi probs so might be wrong actuarial stats bod needed in thread

[doubleup]

....

[doubleup]

It must be that a tie in itself is less likely than an outright win, so that scores that don't involve a tie are more likely.

[AceHighSuited]

while Wigan have a history of playing second stringers in the League Cup.

So wish I never read this.  Just fml.  I miss when the camel posts 6/1 winners and then read the last words of his post were Wigan trounce West Ham. 

Suppose, i deserve it for being greedy.

[Simon Galloway]

Either way, Sportsbook.com decided to refund those who had bet on the Packers, saying it was the right thing to do.

PP just have too!!!!!

[redarmi]

Does anyone know if any firms actually paid Packers bettors rather than just refunded their stakes

[doubleup]

ok like the proverbial something with a something I might have found a bet.

The fourballs should be closer matches than the foursomes as the former generally requires a birdie to win a hole, so a halved match would be more likely, so the 2.5/1.5 scoreline more likely.

I had a look at this site http://golf.about.com/od/teamcompetitions/a/rydercupresults.htm  and the theory seems to be backed up by the stats.  There are more halved matches in fourballs and in the last 20 fourballs have resulted in four 2.5/1.5 for the US and six for europe.

So I think there is value in betting the fourballs at 11/2 for a europe score of 2.5/1.5

  

[The Camel]

while Wigan have a history of playing second stringers in the League Cup.

So wish I never read this.  Just fml.  I miss when the camel posts 6/1 winners and then read the last words of his post were Wigan trounce West Ham. 

Suppose, i deserve it for being greedy.

To be fair to me, they did make 6  or 7 changes.

And I didn't advise it as bet on West Ham, who also made wholesale changes.

[redarmi]

Problem with this bet, as I see it, doubleup is that for Europe to be value here they have to be more likely to win 2.5-1.5 than the USA based on the stats that you are quoting which given they are underdogs seems unlikely unless the likely results conform to some weird distribution.  Also a very small sample and based on Ryder Cups involving cases where Europe are favourites etc.

[Bad Beat]

 Before I start another long ramble I shall just answer Camel's question.

 He asked why "Mr Boom" didn't just buy and then wait until we moved the price and send all his mates on to sell. He of course did all sorts and had lots of tricks. We were handicapped at City Index by an old city tradition that clients would not have to give an account number or name to get a price. We would quote from a screen the same to everyone. Of course that is not what really happened. We just learned to recognise the voices of about 300 people which covered all our winning and bigger significant customers.

 In the example I gave before we would open England at 300-320 and several "wagons" (like ice-creams), would buy. We would shift to 310-330. If more wagons bought we might go 320-340. Now the winning clients would ring to sell. Our job would be to recognise their voices and give them a price of 310-330 or maybe 300-320.

 On my first week I just read 320-340 off the screen to "Mr Boom" and I was told:

 "It is your job to make sure he and his brother never ever have a bet when they ring up, but to find out what it was they wanted to do".

 Easier said than done.

[Bad Beat]

 I liked the Tranmere debate by the way. I have to throw a small spanner in the works and speak on the side of Dung Beetle. It is possible, (but very difficult), to find a team that the market has underestimated. Sometimes teams improve quicker than people think and the market fails to respond quickly enough. I would say it is a weakness of the market in all sports that the general lean towards regression to the mean, (which is a good way for the market to think), can sometimes cause value in jumping on the early stages of a streak.

[redarmi]

I think for sure there are teams and players that have been so good that the market have continued to underestimate them for a while.  Barcelona and Real Madrid in recent years, Tiger Woods for the first year or so of his career (remember the days of 9/1 the field in golf tourneys) and to a lesser degree the NE Patriots a couple of years ago spring to mind (I am generally talking through my pocket here) but there have also been a ton of examples where people thought teams were underrated or markets had changed and they did regress.  As Neil says it is just such a difficult thing to do.  Maybe Tranmere will prove to be a very good side (I genuinely have no idea) and value but I think even then you have to have spotted something in a team that still makes them underrated.  Perhaps you watch a team every week (which is what makes Chompys bets on Posh games so valuable) or you have analysed their shots on target to shots ratio and possession stats and realise that, if anything, their scorelines do not represent how dominant they have been.  It could even be that you have read the match reports of every team in the league but the point is you have to do something, go that extra mile that doesn't involve just reading the racing and football outlook or looking at scores.

[The Camel]

I liked the Tranmere debate by the way. I have to throw a small spanner in the works and speak on the side of Dung Beetle. It is possible, (but very difficult), to find a team that the market has underestimated. Sometimes teams improve quicker than people think and the market fails to respond quickly enough. I would say it is a weakness of the market in all sports that the general lean towards regression to the mean, (which is a good way for the market to think), can sometimes cause value in jumping on the early stages of a streak.

Very unlikely (I would go as far as saying impossible) to find an English football team with a 6-2-0 record from it's opening 8 games to be under rated.

But the saturation media coverage of everything football means such a team is infinitely likely to be underpriced.

Look at Swansea after their first couple of games. I am convinced they have been underpriced and value to oppose since matchday 2. Not necessarily because the market over rates them, but because the linesmakers knew after 2 impressive wins, there would be floods of mug money for them.

Other sports I would definitely agree with you.

[Bad Beat]

 I don't disagree. Football is the hardest sport perhaps to find teams where you can profitably get on a streak. I was slightly playing devil's advocate. I generally agree with everyone who has said you can't find value in the Saturday coupon by looking at results and tables. There are very occasional exceptions to every rule though.