Tips for Tikay

[tikay]

Tikay you need to get in touch with Bwin to cancel the Fiorentina to qualify for CL bet. It's top 2 only, very sneaky and misleading.

I've asked to cancel it and will be sticking it on the top 3 finish at 5/2. You've already got £50 which is ok.

Thanks Mr Maldini, ditto for the PM, I've got my little man on the case, & hopefully he'll have it sorted today. 

I'm sure we'll be fine. The bet description was not "misleading", it was plain wrong. Absolute joke, imo......

[TightEnd]

Daily Report

Profit on Month £154.54

Outstanding Bets £2881.12

Free bets to Use ONE William Hill by TOMORROW

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aia1Hxq-NDNWdFk3UmlTSXMzTjRBTVNfOWRndVFsZHc&usp=drive_web#gid=34

A profit of £16 yesterday thanks to Hibs victory in the Edinburgh Derby for a profit of £36 offset by two Southwell losers for -£20

In the cricket England let it slip again. 97-5 became 326. Haddin again scored runs, 75. 465 runs in 7 inns in the series; previous most by a keeper in the Ashes - 378 by Alec Stewart in 12 inns in 1993.

Broad two wickets and Anderson 1 so with one innings to go we are at 19-12 on the wicket count and only something very unusual will prevent the Broad bet winning and paying for the rest of the Ashes bets

A small profit on the series will be most unexpected given how it has turned out, with Trott, Swann, Prior, Root etc all falling by the wayside this series.

One stat that tells a story, In the series so far England have bowled 158 balls that would have hit the stumps and 2978 that wouldn't. 

[Omm]

http://www.oddschecker.com/golf/hyundai-tournament-of-champions/winner

This starts in 40 mins and I think it might be worth a little. £10e/w on Jordan Spieth Corals still 22-1 (just beats bf) Although debutants do not fair well on this course I was reading an article the other day that thought Jordan might be an exception to that rule because his putting has been so good. Past winners have not faired particularly well in driving distances, but the course by all accounts is quite high for greens in regulation. If Jordan is on form with his putting then this is the sort of tournament he should be winning.

The best price has gone for Adam Scott who was 7.1 with earlier in the week.  Although after a win in November I've also had a little tickle on Harris English who seems to be in abit of form.

Not much time to decide so you might have to make the decision if it's a bet or not.

£10 e/w Spieth
£5e/w English both 22-1

[TightEnd]

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

Click to see full-size image.

[Marky147]

one for the hurricane flyers, a slow burner but stick with until the last minute or so

[Marky147]

Think the first NBA game is 1am if u wanna get a cheeky score on tikay

Thanks Jeff, but I'm a bit averse to accas, I can't help myself, though I'm grateful you put it up, as it alerted others to it.

I know about the suggested value, da de da, but the fact is, bookies LOVE people doing Accas, as you have to beat them 3, 4 or 5 times to win. It's quite hard to beat them once, in truth. Bookies LOVE punters who place Accas, as that is where so much of their profit comes from. They'd far rather we all done Accas than singles. They'll go skint waiting for me, though.   

May improve your "credit rating" a bit though, by showing some ice cream tendencies.

Sprat to catch a mackerel etc, blah blah

Yes, that is entirely fair comment.

I just don't get a buzz from them though, as I'm a nit by nature, through & through.

I used to do nothing but Accas, especially on the Greyhounds, 112 x 10p Reverse Forecast doubles, Traps 1 & 6, da de da. The pain I used to feel when I had a "run-up" which fell at the last hurdle (metaphorical) was horrible though. I don't like pain. 

I am now a winning poker player, too, bit of a novelty for me, as I "lost" my game a few years ago. Just small ball, laughably small, but the satisfaction from being a genuine winner again is immense.

I don't have any objection to Accas being put up here, none at all, but I want Fred to remain profitable, & I dont think, in general, that is the best route to go.

Terms & Conditons apply.

Surely giving a bit of equity away to try and ensure the longevity of accounts is a good idea though?

Throw them £20 on the odd treble to keep boxes checked, or unchecked as the case may be.

Yes, as I said to Adzy, I don't disagree. It's like eating brussel sprouts though, it does not come easily.

Better start holding your nose

[tikay]

http://www.oddschecker.com/golf/hyundai-tournament-of-champions/winner

This starts in 40 mins and I think it might be worth a little. £10e/w on Jordan Spieth Corals still 22-1 (just beats bf) Although debutants do not fair well on this course I was reading an article the other day that thought Jordan might be an exception to that rule because his putting has been so good. Past winners have not faired particularly well in driving distances, but the course by all accounts is quite high for greens in regulation. If Jordan is on form with his putting then this is the sort of tournament he should be winning.

The best price has gone for Adam Scott who was 7.1 with earlier in the week.  Although after a win in November I've also had a little tickle on Harris English who seems to be in abit of form.

Not much time to decide so you might have to make the decision if it's a bet or not.

£10 e/w Spieth
£5e/w English both 22-1

Ooh, thanks Ommy.

Any views from the Jordan Spieth Fan Club, or other Golf chaps, before I plunge?

[tikay]

Fiorentina-gate rumbles on...

Oddschecker say: "Hi, We’ve been in touch with bwin and they confirm that all teams that qualify for the group stages of the Champions League – either automatically via the top two or via qualification rounds – will be paid as winners."

Awaiting official conf from bwin.

Whoa, hold up.

What exactly have Oddschecker got to do with this?

Did you actually get a communication from Oddschecker, if so, do we have a name? I actually share an office - very same room - as Oddschecker, just them, & Ch 861. I don't chat with them much, just polite niceties, except for the young girl, who is exceedingly pretty. I could chat with her if need be. Just to assist in the Fiorentina matter, obv.

[horseplayer]

thanks for fixing the link marky


pretty sure the accounts are to late to increase the limits on now, would surely be a lot more of a worry if accounts were not restricted by now?

[Chompy]

Yuh, emailed them and everything. Adam Roarty is the man you need.

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/reading/top-league-goalscorer

Interesting market this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/reading/top-scorers

Alfie leads Pobsy be one, then Guthers, a midfielder, is two back, with the rest tailed off.

Alfie has only started one match since October and could well be sold this month. Pob seems to be the chosen one. I'm not going to ruin the market by being allowed £25.

Anyone any thoughts?

[edgascoigne]

I'm a bit averse to accas, I can't help myself.

I know about the suggested value, da de da, but the fact is, bookies LOVE people doing Accas, as you have to beat them 3, 4 or 5 times to win. It's quite hard to beat them once, in truth. Bookies LOVE punters who place Accas, as that is where so much of their profit comes from. They'd far rather we all done Accas than singles. They'll go skint waiting for me, though.   

Morning all,

Have a few minutes spare so just wanted to make a brief post as I've seen this logic from Teeks a couple of times now and thought I'd offer a brief piece on the subject... I realise I ramble more than most so will try to keep to bullet point format.

1. Tikay, you are correct in that, generally speaking, bookies do love punters who place doubles/trebles/accas. The very best example of this is the football coupon punter who tries to pick the 10 results from the weekend's Premier League games as an example.

2. This is because, generally speaking, the bookmaker expects to have a positive edge on any given market. In the example above, when he is laying Arsenal at 4/6, the 'true' price may be closer to 1.71 for example. This gives the bookmaker an implied win of £2.53 for every £100 staked.

3. As multiple selections are 'strung' together, the bookmakers margin increases - as the punter is rolling forward less than he should. In the example above if Arsenal were doubled with Chelsea at Evs (whom should be 11/10) then Billy Bunter rolls £166.67 from the Arsenal win, which then cops leaving him £333.34, of which £233.34 is profit. Sounds great, but in reality his £100 should have become £171, which at 11/10 true price (instead of the evens offered) becomes £359.10, of which £259.10 is profit. The punter has won £25.76 less than he should have done!!


HOWEVER

4. We have seen that the flaw in the piece is that the margin multiplies as selections are strung together.

5. This is generally accepted as bad news as the bookies margin multiplies up. But.....what if the punter had a positive expectation, rather than the bookmaker?

6. Fred quickly accepted beating the price as a good sign, it implies +EV to the punter. If Fred has £100 on a horse @ 2/1 that has a true price of 6/4, Fred has 'made' £20 in EV from the bet. His returns are £300 where they should be £250.

7. Imagine Fred had two of these in a day, both bet at 2/1 where they should be 6/4. If these were placed in a winning double the return would be £100 --> £300 --> £900, for a profit of £800. If the true price of 6/4 had been taken on both selections, it would have looked like £100 --> £250 --> £625, for a profit of £525. In this instance, 84% of the time Fred loses £100, and 16% of the time he wins £800. Fred has made £44 in EV from a £100 bet.

8. Securing prices in excess of the true price, and multiplying them together, has allowed for the margin to multiply in the punters favour.

CONCLUSION

If the margin is in the bookmaker's favour, multiples are bad, as the 'edge' rolls up for them.

If the margin is in the punter's favour, multiples are good, as the 'edge' rolls up for us.

Interim volatility is increased owing to the decreased % likelihood of the selected events occurring (the phenomenon you refer to of it being tough enough to beat the bookies once, let alone twice/thrice/etc.)

Losing spells will be longer as the punter waits for his returns to realise 'true expectation'.

But in the longterm the punter is putting himself in fantastic value spots, which is of course the aim of the game.



Good luck,

Ed

[tikay]

Morning Mr T.

I think we can go for another first half out scoring the 2nd half tonight in the Northampton v Harlequins game. Over the last 2 weeks my theory is ahead 7 to 4 with 1 tied game and we are getting odds against. Small sample size I know but it feels right, and I have some more hiding to do now so can't check any more.

Suggest £20 !st half most points @ 6/5 with Paddy Power. The 11/10 with Ladbrokes is OK too.

Congrats on winning month number 8 in a row.

Morning H.

Hatch battening time down there, I believe, with the weather closing in?

Yes, 8 months on the bounce, amazing. And I've not personally selected a single winner. Funny old game.

We are on that Bet, thank you. Got a bit complicated, as PP restricted me to just over a fiver, so I had the balance with Ladbrokes.

In fact, it got even more complicated, as the PP website misleadingly listed the Newcastle/Sale Sharks identical bet right next to the Northampton/Harlequins one, with the inevitable outcome that I ticked the wrong game. Jarringly, they allowed me £7 on the WRONG game, & only £5 on the intended game. I run so bad. Fire up the Misclick Spready.

BET PLACED

[JaffaCake]

As Ed said, how can a bet, on however many multiples, be bad if you're hearing the market price by 10%?

I like it when Keef puts grandad in his place n redarmi follows in to call him muggy :-)

[tikay]

I'm a bit averse to accas, I can't help myself.

I know about the suggested value, da de da, but the fact is, bookies LOVE people doing Accas, as you have to beat them 3, 4 or 5 times to win. It's quite hard to beat them once, in truth. Bookies LOVE punters who place Accas, as that is where so much of their profit comes from. They'd far rather we all done Accas than singles. They'll go skint waiting for me, though.   

Morning all,

Have a few minutes spare so just wanted to make a brief post as I've seen this logic from Teeks a couple of times now and thought I'd offer a brief piece on the subject... I realise I ramble more than most so will try to keep to bullet point format.

1. Tikay, you are correct in that, generally speaking, bookies do love punters who place doubles/trebles/accas. The very best example of this is the football coupon punter who tries to pick the 10 results from the weekend's Premier League games as an example.

2. This is because, generally speaking, the bookmaker expects to have a positive edge on any given market. In the example above, when he is laying Arsenal at 4/6, the 'true' price may be closer to 1.71 for example. This gives the bookmaker an implied win of £2.53 for every £100 staked.

3. As multiple selections are 'strung' together, the bookmakers margin increases - as the punter is rolling forward less than he should. In the example above if Arsenal were doubled with Chelsea at Evs (whom should be 11/10) then Billy Bunter rolls £166.67 from the Arsenal win, which then cops leaving him £333.34, of which £233.34 is profit. Sounds great, but in reality his £100 should have become £171, which at 11/10 true price (instead of the evens offered) becomes £359.10, of which £259.10 is profit. The punter has won £25.76 less than he should have done!!


HOWEVER

4. We have seen that the flaw in the piece is that the margin multiplies as selections are strung together.

5. This is generally accepted as bad news as the bookies margin multiplies up. But.....what if the punter had a positive expectation, rather than the bookmaker?

6. Fred quickly accepted beating the price as a good sign, it implies +EV to the punter. If Fred has £100 on a horse @ 2/1 that has a true price of 6/4, Fred has 'made' £20 in EV from the bet. His returns are £300 where they should be £250.

7. Imagine Fred had two of these in a day, both bet at 2/1 where they should be 6/4. If these were placed in a winning double the return would be £100 --> £300 --> £900, for a profit of £800. If the true price of 6/4 had been taken on both selections, it would have looked like £100 --> £250 --> £625, for a profit of £525. In this instance, 84% of the time Fred loses £100, and 16% of the time he wins £800. Fred has made £44 in EV from a £100 bet.

8. Securing prices in excess of the true price, and multiplying them together, has allowed for the margin to multiply in the punters favour.

CONCLUSION

If the margin is in the bookmaker's favour, multiples are bad, as the 'edge' rolls up for them.

If the margin is in the punter's favour, multiples are good, as the 'edge' rolls up for us.

Interim volatility is increased owing to the decreased % likelihood of the selected events occurring (the phenomenon you refer to of it being tough enough to beat the bookies once, let alone twice/thrice/etc.)

Losing spells will be longer as the punter waits for his returns to realise 'true expectation'.

But in the longterm the punter is putting himself in fantastic value spots, which is of course the aim of the game.



Good luck,

Ed

Ha! Thanks for all that Ed, appreciated.

I did say (as you acknowledge) "generally speaking".

The increased volatility is very important to note though. I'm a bankroll miser, which I frequently get criticised for. Fine, so be it, but I have no intention of going skinto again because our 'roll cannot handle the extreme volatility inherent in Accas.

I'm a little too old to be changing my views on this I'm afraid, even though I'm sure your assumptions are wholly correct.

The punter ONLY puts himself in those long term value spots when he gets the right price. I doubt 50% of the "suggested" bets put up on Fred meet that criteria.

[tikay]

As Ed said, how can a bet, on however many multiples, be bad if you're hearing the market price by 10%?
I like it when Keef puts grandad in his place n redarmi follows in to call him muggy :-)

"Volatility". You have  beat the bookie 4 times to win that extra value. Stranger things have happened, as you noted last night......

Ha, I'm well used to being put in my place by elders & betters, (& even bettors) & my ego is long gone, so I can cope with reds calling me muggy......

But I won't be doing many Accas, end of.