Tips for Tikay

[tikay]

Ha, hope the Wendy House Weekend went well, hector.

I shall spend 10 minutes on the naughty step, though it is a bit crowded, as EsoWalsall got there first.

[edgascoigne]

The above is obviously step 1 before placing any priority odds bet

Yep. In life, such tendencies make us price-conscious or a 'nit'. In punting, this helps define our bottom line.

[tikay]

One thing that I think would be good re: the priority price offers and the ilk is for Fred to get into a strict habit of checking the Betfair market before placing the bet.

It's obviously difficult without the historical price/time data to go back on but I would bet a pound to a penny that of the Priority Prices we have taken there is a large degree of variety between selections that are 'tight' to the Betfair price and selections that aren't.

Example 1

A team are 5/2 generally and WH 'boost' them to 7/2 for a short period. The offer at first glance looks great as we are beating the industry general price by miles.....however, on a cursory check Fred notices that the Betfair market is 4.2-4.3

This may be that arbing money is pushing the selection's price out but it may also be that the books are trying to duck the team in question and are actually well under the 'genuine/true' price.

In this example Fred has a smidge of value but Kelly would suggest a smaller bet than in Example 2.....

Example 2

A horse is 5/2 generally and WH 'boost' it to 7/2 for a short period. The horse is a rock solid 3.6-3.65 on Betfair in the antepost market and has been trading at this price for some time, suggesting a great degree of confidence in said price/implied probability. The 7/2 is definitively massive, and Kelly would like us to have our conkers on.



If Fred can finesse to this approach and decrease bet sizes when the margin on these bets is lower (but still +ve) and increase bet sizes when the margin on these bets is higher then Fred's +ve expectation over time will rise massively, ensuring he benefits fully from his awareness of these offers.

Comparing ALL bets to Betfair, including Priority Offers, is something I only recently arrived at, & I now do so every time, or at least when time permits.

The last Priority Offer I can recall was that horse, Jack Dexter, on Saturday, & it was a good price compared to Betty at the time.

Later, the price drifted badly, and then, just before the off, it shortened considerably. It was never in the race though, & was not persevered with after halfway.

[hector62]

Whilst there you should still be able to make out my bum print from the time I spent on it from proposing an 84-6 losing tip.

[Bad Beat]

 I think I made a mistake. I was so keen to say that we should take them all that I forgot some of the key points of that post.

 I started that one off by saying that the reason we can "know" that we are having value in these bets and therefore we should take them all blind is that the Cheltenham market is very mature and with perfect knowledge how can it be wrong?

 There are several reasons a market might not be perfect and in these situations we should be careful with priority offers.

 One of those reasons might be that the market is very new. It has not been beaten into shape by hundreds of thousands of annoying robots and 23 sharp minds, (sorry Betfair would assure you they still have plenty of pro punters knocking these prices into shape and trading millions to get positions either way).

 The horse that was backed at 7/1 recently was in a market that had traded less than 10% of what the ante-post Cheltenham markets had done at the time we did our bets. It was possible that once the price had been traded a bit more strongly, (with 99% of that trading happening on the day), it might drift or be backed massively. Using the thin, young Betfair market there to tell us blindly if we had a good bet, without recourse to the opinions of a judge like Chompy was wrong, whereas on the Champion Hurdle we don't need to bother consulting because the mature Betfair market has done all the work.


 It is possible occasionally that the mature Betfair market may have new news that is about to hit it, and we could, on consultation, realise that a priority price is not great because of that. It is unlikely that someone on this thread could know about Tiger spraining a wrist or being almost disqualified before the rest of the market but it is possible that the clever people here could be able to respond better than the market to the implications of that. A very mature market like the Gold Cup could change completely if it rained 20mills overnight and a priority price on the firm-ground loving 2nd favourite could be bad value as we "know" that that must surely drift once the market has really absorped the new information.

 It's possible that the mature Betfair market may contain an inherent bias. In the Masters players like Woods, Mickelson and Rory are massively overbet by the punters. The proportion of bets does not look like 25% of the money on the 3/1 chance and 8% on the 12/1 chances, it is more likely to look like 45% on the 3/1 chance and 14% on the 12/1 chances. Bookmakers are prepared to run a lopsided book because they like to gamble for a result and it is also a good way to gain new customers in a competitive market. However they may now push the prices of the three favourites in a bit because they know they'll still get backed.

 It's my old thing about the price that will split the handle against the one that will split the result. In the case of Tiger I think the 6/1 just HAD to be a great bet. In retrospect I don't think anyone who had that bet can complain. Tiger went off 4/1 and we had a big edge against a very mature Betfair market. Personally I took all the Hills priority prices and also the Ladbrokes enhancements.

 The ones that that are annoying me now are the 14/1 Mickelson and the 12/1 Rory. At the time Rory was "only" 11/1 on Betfair and I took 12/1. Mickelson was trading 12-12.5 and I took 14/1.  While it is generally true that Betfair can be your guide in established mature markets and if you can beat it you should bet blind I don't believe in either of these  I was getting enough. It is possible that there was an inherent favourite bias in the Betfair market and that the true price of all three at the off should have been slightly bigger. After all Tiger traded at 5.6-5.7 for 48-hours yet on the off he was 4.9-5.0. Did the market really learn new information about the chance of Tiger Woods winning in that time or was that all just weight of money, much of which, by definition, must be from recreational punters who had 2 days to bet him at 9/2 and who could have got 6/1 if they were shrewd?
 

 

[Dubai]

Don't get too hung up on bf being some sort of perfect price on all markets. It's obv a better guide than bookies odds or sp for example but you can obviously still beat the markets, it's easier in less known sports obviously as the markets are less liquid and you are far more likely to have an edge if you have a strong opinion in a dog race where 20k is matched compared to the Champions league final where say 30m is matched. But don't think you can't beat betfair, you can. So nothing wrong with betting opinions and maths combined, it's obviously the best of both worlds

[Dubai]

That was to Tikay not Neil. Just can see a scenario where someone proposes a bet on bf and Tikay says isn't it a perfect market

[Dubai]

And as for the 7/1 horse at weekend, nothing wrong with reducing variance in a situation like that and laying the win part off and letting place part run. It's nearly impossible for the place part of that bet to be a bad bet but the win was only v slightly in front of bf and if you argue market not formed properly yet etc we can reduce variance and just take the much better part of the bet

[Bad Beat]

100% agree with Ed there btw (obv - it is sound common sense).

 One of the resons I am cross with myself over the Mickelson and Rory bets is that I was getting 1% of value vs the established Betfair market compared with 6% on Tiger (the overound difference between the priority price and the Betfair market so not actually the % of value but you see what I mean).

 I should have been having 6 times more on Woods.

 I'm not being after time in any way here, just trying to learn from my mistakes which I make every day.

[tikay]

100% agree with Ed there btw (obv - it is sound common sense).

 One of the resons I am cross with myself over the Mickelson and Rory bets is that I was getting 1% of value vs the established Betfair market compared with 6% on Tiger (the overound difference between the priority price and the Betfair market so not actually the % of value but you see what I mean).

 I should have been having 6 times more on Woods.

 I'm not being after time in any way here, just trying to learn from my mistakes which I make every day.

You may be surprised to learn that I run a private "Worst Fred Mistakes" League.

Actually, I run two of them, one being, obviously, "without Eso Kral".

[Bad Beat]

 I have to do some other things so I won't post 50 other things here this morning. Sure I'll be reading the thread in an hour though. Sure I'll also end up posting some stuff on maths bets vs form and experience choices (is that a good way to summarise the slight disagreement that has rumbled for a little while?).

 I would say that anyone who is talking about having too many bets on one thing is just wrong. If the bets are plus ev then it doesn't matter if I bet ten horses in the Grand National or just one. If it is a long-term market it should have precisely zero bearing on my decision making process when having a new bet, that I have already had bets in days gone by. When revisting long-term markets it is essential that we totally forget about what bets we have already done and focus on what the prices are now, what they should be and whether we can spot bets that are +ev.

 It is possible that punters can bet too much of their bankroll on a single event. The solution to that is not to have less selections in that event though but to reduce the size of bet on each selection.

 I would also like to say that I felt completely and utterly physically sick when I read at the weekend of different people backing Cabrera and Scot at exactly the same time to hedge their outright bets on the other guy. At no stage did I hear those people make any attempt at giving an argument as to why they were betting their new player that had anything to do with golfing ability, price, stats, etc etc. The arguments were all to do with having an easy life, less pressure, locking up a win. I would suggest that if they can't hack it those people should either bet a smaller amount they are more comfortable with or give up altogether.

[Doobs]

100% agree with Ed there btw (obv - it is sound common sense).

 One of the resons I am cross with myself over the Mickelson and Rory bets is that I was getting 1% of value vs the established Betfair market compared with 6% on Tiger (the overound difference between the priority price and the Betfair market so not actually the % of value but you see what I mean).

 I should have been having 6 times more on Woods.

 I'm not being after time in any way here, just trying to learn from my mistakes which I make every day.

You may be surprised to learn that I run a private "Worst Fred Mistakes" League.

Actually, I run two of them, one being, obviously, "without Eso Kral".

Poor old Eso.  I really don't think there was much wrong with that 2nd Walsall bet.  It isn't like it has gone horribly wrong, think he put it up at 20s and it is now best price 33s.   We could definitely do with Swindon losing a couple, so Walsall can draw their way to the playoffs.

I know he earlier put up a relegation bet, but willingness to change your mind on a bet is probably a good thing.  

[Dubai]

Yeah 100%. Funnier to wind him up tho than tell him he done well

[Bad Beat]

 One last post before I go and attend to three things I have been totally putting off.

 Maybe we should have some Golden Rules of taking Priority Prices. A PP Charter. If the bet meets the criteria we bet it automatically and nobody is allowed to moan afterwards that they would have layed it or they didn't fancy it.

 Let me throw out some rules, hopefully others can help refine it:

 The selection must be x% bigger than it is in the Betfair market.

 The Betfair market should be reasonably well established and liquid.

 If the Betfair market is likely to be skewed massively by wagon-money then we need to beat the price by x%.

 Has anything changed in the last 24-hours that could change the Betfair market significantly, or that has started to change the market significantly?

 Is something likely to happen in the next 24 hours that could change the Betfair market significantly?

 If there are two PPS on the same event we should have more on the one that best meets these criteria and less on the one that doesn't even if they are both +ev rather than max on each (is that a good idea, given that both are +ev?).

 We should look to trade out if there is further information available that might make us fancy the bet less which we believe the market may not have fully reflected yet (a change in going happening late at night when we are all up and we know the horse will drift badly as normal wagons wake up).

 Can anyone think of other rules?

[tikay]

Yeah 100%. Funnier to wind him up tho than tell him he done well

This, 100%. He is a very good mate, & it pleases me to mock-diss him.

I would expect him to do the same to me if I were not completely perfect in every way.

It is certainly not genuine, or serious. *

* Well just a bit.