Tips for Tikay

[The Camel]

I still fancy winning both bets. The Chelsea Spurs match will probably be key

When's Bale due back?

[Dubai]

Spin has midpoints as 70,70,68 Arse Chelsea Spurs

They trying to rush him back for next week. Probably wont be 100% tho so massive risk against City at home

[Dubai]

Spurs probably bit underrated in the market having been koed from Europa. Can't have Chelsea at the prices with that run in, with them in Europa in between with a manager who will prioritise it

[Chompy]

Not sure Kooshack's save from Swanners was a worldy but it was down the other end, so perhaps one of the hand-holders from the Moyes End can confirm?

That was as close as he came tbh, not one of his better displays. But at least he nearly got 90mins in tonight and, as long as they keep pricing him up incorrectly, I'll keep going in.

[Dubai]

Chompy bump to remind us before next game please. I'l chase Swanson till he scores

[Junior Senior]

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.

This was me! Just trying to learn but also build a gambling roll from virtually nothing. I wanted to ensure i boosted my accounts regardless of outcome and i still left it with having a bigger return with my initial selection. as it happens i have reviewed what i did, ran the calculations and over hedged a little on what i wanted to do so i will learn from that.  What should i have done? Surely not let it ride totally? Or maybe i should?

[Dubai]

Theoretically you should always let it ride unless you believe the market is now wrong and either your golfer is underpriced therefore lay or another golfer is overpriced therefore back- however as soon as you have a very strong opinion on any market it's pretty unlikely the market will ever adjust to make you think your selection is now no longer value, so normally id suggest never laying off is probably the best way to do it. The massive reason for this is you are most never going to lay off when your selection starts badly and close out for a loss even if the market was now overestimating his chances, so all you do is maximise your losses whilst capping your winnings. The other main reason why I said you shouldn't lay off is you had the each way already landed so you've already drawn on the bet which if you were busto/over exposed(which might be a pyschological reason to lay) is no longer an issue as a profit has already been made

[Dubai]

Basically unless you are an extremely good judge of a particular sport and also understand the markets to a very high level then I'd recommend never laying off.

[The Camel]

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.

This was me! Just trying to learn but also build a gambling roll from virtually nothing. I wanted to ensure i boosted my accounts regardless of outcome and i still left it with having a bigger return with my initial selection. as it happens i have reviewed what i did, ran the calculations and over hedged a little on what i wanted to do so i will learn from that.  What should i have done? Surely not let it ride totally? Or maybe i should?

If you think you should hedge, you've bet too much.

Bet a proportion of your roll you feel comfortable with losing, and then get the beers in and watch the action unfold.

[Junior Senior]

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.

This was me! Just trying to learn but also build a gambling roll from virtually nothing. I wanted to ensure i boosted my accounts regardless of outcome and i still left it with having a bigger return with my initial selection. as it happens i have reviewed what i did, ran the calculations and over hedged a little on what i wanted to do so i will learn from that.  What should i have done? Surely not let it ride totally? Or maybe i should?

If you think you should hedge, you've bet too much.

Bet a proportion of your roll you feel comfortable with losing, and then get the beers in and watch the action unfold.

Tbh after angel knocked it in close and birdied the 72nd i just didnt fancy Scott to convert in the play off so was keen to get on cabrera and where i thought he should have gone odds on favourite i was getting 2.1 so felt i had to back for the value of the price and to save a little. I would have been pissed off had i not had a small hedge on angel had he won when my feel at the time was he would win the play off.

Like i say just trying to understand what is best to do in each situation.

[Dubai]

It's fine to hedge if you make Cabrera favourite in a playoff and he is 11/10. I think you'd struggle to make an argument that he should be favourite in a playoff tho and if any firm chalked up 11/10 Scott and even if bf was down I'd expect it to get smashed to smitherens

[Dubai]

The player without the momentum is more likely to be value in a playoff IMO as markets generally overestimate this importance and under estimate the essentials ie Scott being a better player. 10/11 11/10 seemed to slightly underestimate Scott IMO, but its only an opinion and definitely not fact

[atdc21]

Hi Camel and Dubai (and badbeat) i know we have gone down the laying off route over and over , everyone will have their own opinions of what they want from bets and returns etc.
I fully understand that a lot of layed off bets (esp in running ,as most are) you think you are getting the worst of it ,BUT try looking at it like this (just to humour me if nothing else)
if say we back a horse at 10/1 for £100 before the race,  in running 3 out it is going really well and it is 2/1, if in reality (or other peoples opinions) it should be 6/4 by giving someone 2/1 it appears we have given away value, which in a way we have BUT if we lay say £50 at 2/1 our position is we stand to win £900 for £50 (thus giving us 18/1) so although the bet we have just made is -EV in itself, it has given us a bigger % value bet than before the race(but for a lesser amount of money total) at that time.
Hope you can work thru my waffle, i do struggle to get my thoughts into words when typing usually , but as we say 2 sides to a coin etc.   Nits gonna Nit lol .

[Dubai]

Problem is you've just given £25 from our profit away. Our book should read  +£925 -50

We are in a great position because we have £100@10s about a 6/4 chance, trading out at doesn't make our position better. 40% of the time we will win 1k, the other 60% we will lose £100. That's better than winning. £900 40% time and losing £50 60%. Our original position is irrelevant to our new bet, we've made our original bet and have a great position, it doesn't ever mean its correct to place bad bets to reduce our liability.

[atdc21]

HeHe  thought that would be your reply 
funny thing about gamblers they want every last ounce of 'value' then go and blow 4 times the amount they need to celebrating lol.
 Good luck with your bets.