Tips for Tikay

[tikay]

There are only 6 runners in the Newcastle 1.40 & seems a perfect place to use the William Hill "free bet if second".

I don't really have any particular thoughts apart from avoiding K-King as we have lost a significant value in backing that horse. I would be really happy to back Bertie Milan and is just about best price with hills at 5-1, 11-2 in one place. It could be a possible entry to use the free bet, but perhaps better used elsewhere imo.

Suggest £20 on Bertie Milan with Hills, if not already on that race.

Thanks Aaron.

Not had time to check the race, but we are on. (£25, not £20)

BET PLACED

surely we can do better than this?

very little analysis in the recommendation, which was particularly wishy washy with not a single reason given why we should back it apart from "I would be really happy to back it"?


sorry, but I though we avoided general ice-cream stuff?

My fault entirely, not Aaron's, I was busy elsewhere & never checked the race properly, as I stated.

Having now looked at the race, it was not at all well framed to suit the Offer.

It's a maths thing, this Offer, the Selection is not too important, but the prices need to "fit" the Offer. This was certainly not the case here, but my fault for not thinking or checking.

[aaron1867]

Plus like I said if you looked at Oddschecker at the time, you'll find that it was definitely the one with the most value in what was looking like a tight race.

Winner was around 7-2 all day from 7-1, so we couldn't back that, whilst at the time 2nd placed horse was 3rd best price with Hills, so what would have been the point? Bertie Milan was the only horse showing significant value with Hills at joing best second price, in what again, I repeat looked like a tight race. We are over 3m, remember.

The comment of "no way we could have backed the winner" - was in regards to the horse who won the race, it was previously 7/1, not sure we could have ever found a bet with it.

1st - K-King (7/2) - Previously 7/1

2nd - Rolecarr (7/2) - 3rd best priced with Hills at the time

3rd, 4th & 5th placed was 4/1, 4/1 & 9/2 (ours), whilst we got on at 5/1.

6th was 8/1.

It looks to me we had a choice of three horses & we picked the wrong one.

[tikay]

There are only 6 runners in the Newcastle 1.40 & seems a perfect place to use the William Hill "free bet if second".

I don't really have any particular thoughts apart from avoiding K-King as we have lost a significant value in backing that horse. I would be really happy to back Bertie Milan and is just about best price with hills at 5-1, 11-2 in one place. It could be a possible entry to use the free bet, but perhaps better used elsewhere imo.

Suggest £20 on Bertie Milan with Hills, if not already on that race.

Thanks Aaron.

Not had time to check the race, but we are on. (£25, not £20)

BET PLACED

surely we can do better than this?

very little analysis in the recommendation, which was particularly wishy washy with not a single reason given why we should back it apart from "I would be really happy to back it"?


sorry, but I though we avoided general ice-cream stuff?

We get very little analysis from Doobs, but they are still backed.

We got a decent price, bigger than SP & there was no way we could have backed the winner anyway.

I think perhaps you are just trying to find faults for the sake of it. Bet was definitely fine.

I am busy right now Aaron, but I'll explain the logic of this Offer later, & the sort of market where they work best. Doobs understands them perfectly, so I trust him to select the right races, & I assumed you did, too.

It was a mis-step, but no big deal, we done £25, next case.

[sonour]

Some Ryman league value incoming, just for some reason do not feel up to the task of writing the world on it just now. Probably will be up before sunrise. The gist is a 4/1 that should probably be closer to a 3/1-5/2 shot.

Probably will just need to re read Tighty's recommends on lower league earlier to get my juices flowing.  

Morning Ant.

Don't worry about producing a full length essay, just the pertinent points as to value. I know I mostly swerve your incessent Palace stuff, but away from Palace, your logic is generally tip-top.  

One word of caution today though, the weather will play havoc with football, & bad pitches are a tremendous leveller.

Cheers, well i have it all written out and the weather actually helps the bet, but I was wondering where I am getting the maths wrong in this possible suggestion of...

If 19/5 is being offered for the win for a team and 7/2 for the draw, if i was to back both at a tenner each, I would be effectively getting over 2/1 on either result coming in? So why is it that for this market 5/4 was being offered as the double chance? Am I doing something wrong. Would like to know of this before I put the tip up, if anyone can help please?

You are doing something wrong.  7/2 is 22%, 19/5 is 21%.  Combined 43% is roughly 5/4

I realised the mistake I had in my own calculations, I added the stake back on against giving me a whole point more than I should have. Slow.

In what you said though, how do you arrive at those percentages for those odds and what are they representing? Like I would have thought 7/2 was 350% if anything. Not afraid to look like a fool among the shrewdites.

The percentage chance is 100 / decimal odds.
The decimal odds are the fractional odds + 1

So 7/2 is 100 / 4.5 = 22.22 %

And 19/5 is 100 / 4.8 = 20.83 %

[BigAdz]

Plus like I said if you looked at Oddschecker at the time, you'll find that it was definitely the one with the most value in what was looking like a tight race.

Winner was around 7-2 all day from 7-1, so we couldn't back that, whilst at the time 2nd placed horse was 3rd best price with Hills, so what would have been the point? Bertie Milan was the only horse showing significant value with Hills at joing best second price, in what again, I repeat looked like a tight race. We are over 3m, remember.

The comment of "no way we could have backed the winner" - was in regards to the horse who won the race, it was previously 7/1, not sure we could have ever found a bet with it

It was actually 9-1 last night, but with 365. as a much respected Elder can testify , but I digress.

I have said on numerous occasions, much as these bets may represent mathematical value, sometimes, they just should be left alone. I would prefer to see each of these put up because it is backed up by some confidence in the selection on a form basis too. Best of both world then and no recriminations.

[Kmac84]

I have spent quite a bit of time on todays football cards I have a few selections were I just think the price is plane wrong and I have 1 from Scotland were I think the books have been lazy.  

FA Cup - happy for these to be corrected by anyone.  I started off by pricing up each game and then scoured the net for prices.  

Southampton v Burnley - I had Burnley in at 9/2 chances, still a big price  but was shocked to see we can get 6/1 with a number of the books.  I am not saying this is 100% value but instinctively the price just seems off.  I think Southampton are being priced on the back of their early season form but they have been well out of sorts of late.  

Stoke v Leicester - I think I read on here before that the Championship sides would be pushing for cup runs to help balance the books due to the new fair play rules however, my line of thought on this game was that Pearson was more likely to make changes in this match than Mark Hughes. I think promotion to the Premier League is far more important to Leicester than any cup game.  Leicester have a bigger squad than most Championship sides and I am sure Tight End will be able to offer some guidance here but I think some of the rotations they make are questionable.  I made Stoke around the 11/8 and we can beat that in a number of spots.  I think the books have priced this game up on Leicester fielding their strongest XI I personally expect changes and for tthat reason I am backing Stoke.  I might top up on my single or reverse my position when team news is out though.  

Barnsley v Coventry - This for me was more of a coin flip, Barnsley are another team shot in confidence and Danny Wilson hasn't worked his magic on return - as of yet - Stephen Pressley on the otherhand is an inspirational leader.  I dont particularly like him but I think his record as a manager/player is pretty decent.  As a player he done well in cup competitions, in Scotland as a manager he took all competitions seriously.  He is in charge of a team that is playing some good football just now they are scoring goals and generally doing ok.  I thought the 9/4 we can get with Betfair is a really nice price.  

Hamilton v Queen of the South - I think this is a classic piece of lazy bookmaking.  This game has been priced up purely on league positions.  Queens had a really poor start to the season.  They had lost a manager who had got them promoted and wone a cup competition and brought in a guy who lacked experience.  However over the past 2 months things have started to come together, they have picked up decent points against teams who's league positions have been better.  In addition to that they have recently picked up their first away win since October in tricky conditions at Cowdenbeath.  Hamilton on the otherhand had a really good start to the season but over the past 2 months the wheels have come off, they did beat Queens at Palmerston in a game that QOS dominated.  The 14/5 available with Coral is a stand out.

My bets are a bit ice creamy today, as was pointed out yesterday its good to give a bit of action to books to keep accounts active ;-)

£2 Lucky 15 Burnley 6/1, Stoke 13/10, Coventry 15/8 (sigh), Queen of the South 13/5
Lay Southampton £40 @ 1.55
Back Stoke £50 @7/5
Back Coventry @ £30 @9/4
Back QoS £25 @ 14/5

These are not all selections for Fred, but I wouldn't put you off.   If i were to suggest that Fred got involved I think the best bets are Stoke and QoS.

[JoeBeevers]

Some Ryman league value incoming, just for some reason do not feel up to the task of writing the world on it just now. Probably will be up before sunrise. The gist is a 4/1 that should probably be closer to a 3/1-5/2 shot.

Probably will just need to re read Tighty's recommends on lower league earlier to get my juices flowing.  

Morning Ant.

Don't worry about producing a full length essay, just the pertinent points as to value. I know I mostly swerve your incessent Palace stuff, but away from Palace, your logic is generally tip-top.  

One word of caution today though, the weather will play havoc with football, & bad pitches are a tremendous leveller.

Cheers, well i have it all written out and the weather actually helps the bet, but I was wondering where I am getting the maths wrong in this possible suggestion of...

If 19/5 is being offered for the win for a team and 7/2 for the draw, if i was to back both at a tenner each, I would be effectively getting over 2/1 on either result coming in? So why is it that for this market 5/4 was being offered as the double chance? Am I doing something wrong. Would like to know of this before I put the tip up, if anyone can help please?

You are doing something wrong.  7/2 is 22%, 19/5 is 21%.  Combined 43% is roughly 5/4

I realised the mistake I had in my own calculations, I added the stake back on against giving me a whole point more than I should have. Slow.

In what you said though, how do you arrive at those percentages for those odds and what are they representing? Like I would have thought 7/2 was 350% if anything. Not afraid to look like a fool among the shrewdites.

The percentage chance is 100 / decimal odds.
The decimal odds are the fractional odds + 1

So 7/2 is 100 / 4.5 = 22.22 %

And 19/5 is 100 / 4.8 = 20.83 %

Alternatively you can do denominator/sum of numerator & denominator

2/9 = 22.22%
5/24 = 20.83%

To answer what they represent this may help.

Three horse race:

Evens or 1/1
6/4
9/1

Percentage book with no over round or bookmaker edge.
50%
40%
10%

With bookmaker edge built in:
10/11
11/8
8/1

52.4%
42.1%
11.1%

In the first example it is a perfect 100% book with no over round. in the second example the three prices add up to 105.6 giving the bookmaker a theoretical edge of 5.6%

[Marky147]

Plus like I said if you looked at Oddschecker at the time, you'll find that it was definitely the one with the most value in what was looking like a tight race.

Winner was around 7-2 all day from 7-1, so we couldn't back that, whilst at the time 2nd placed horse was 3rd best price with Hills, so what would have been the point? Bertie Milan was the only horse showing significant value with Hills at joing best second price, in what again, I repeat looked like a tight race. We are over 3m, remember.

The comment of "no way we could have backed the winner" - was in regards to the horse who won the race, it was previously 7/1, not sure we could have ever found a bet with it

Shocker 

It was actually 9-1 last night, but with 365. as a much respected Elder can testify , but I digress.

I have said on numerous occasions, much as these bets may represent mathematical value, sometimes, they just should be left alone. I would prefer to see each of these put up because it is backed up by some confidence in the selection on a form basis too. Best of both world then and no recriminations.

[TightEnd]

Leicester are resting Morgan, Moore, Dyer, Drinkwater and Nugent....thats the spine of the team changed

Game isn't a priority, and I thought Stoke at odds against was very fair, to back up the post above



I also had Sheff U at 11-2 at Villa Park as a possibility for ice creamery.

[Kmac84]

Just on a point that Aaron made and I see he makes the same point quite often and it confuses me a little and I would like the opinions of others on it.  He says the winner in that 1:40 was 7/1 last night and now 7/2 so we couldn't back it?

Why can't we back something where the price moves.  We are automatically assuming the price was either right to start with or massively underrated by the market.  Sure we want to get the best price/biggest price possible but I would never be put off backing something were we never got the original price if we still think there is value in the new price.  

[tikay]

Thanks KMac.

Think we might give the bookies some multiples action, as discussed yesterday, and do only our 2nd ever Lucky 15. The previous one was a lovely winner, as I recall.

Will climb aboard shortly if no better advice received.

[Kmac84]

Leicester are resting Morgan, Moore, Dyer, Drinkwater and Nugent....thats the spine of the team changed

Game isn't a priority, and I thought Stoke at odds against was very fair, to back up the post above



I also had Sheff U at 11-2 at Villa Park as a possibility for ice creamery.

This was also one I was looking at but I had SSN on in the background there and the Villa team seems quite strong.  I recall someone posting comments other day from Lambert in which he had basically written off the cup. 

[tikay]

Just on a point that Aaron made and I see he makes the same point quite often and it confuses me a little and I would like the opinions of others on it.  He says the winner in that 1:40 was 7/1 last night and now 7/2 so we couldn't back it?

Why can't we back something where the price moves.  We are automatically assuming the price was either right to start with or massively underrated by the market.  Sure we want to get the best price/biggest price possible but I would never be put off backing something were we never got the original price if we still think there is value in the new price.  

Aaron was incorrect, imo,  and that was his view, not mine, there is no reason not to back a selection just because we have missed the top of the market. Value is value, even if we miss the best of it.

The bad bet was my fault, however, brain fart, am trying to 4 table Next Door and I spun one plate too many.

[Kmac84]

Just on a point that Aaron made and I see he makes the same point quite often and it confuses me a little and I would like the opinions of others on it.  He says the winner in that 1:40 was 7/1 last night and now 7/2 so we couldn't back it?

Why can't we back something where the price moves.  We are automatically assuming the price was either right to start with or massively underrated by the market.  Sure we want to get the best price/biggest price possible but I would never be put off backing something were we never got the original price if we still think there is value in the new price.  

Aaron was incorrect, imo,  and that was his view, not mine, there is no reason not to back a selection just because we have missed the top of the market. Value is value, even if we miss the best of it.

The bad bet was my fault, however, brain fart, am trying to 4 table Next Door and I spun one plate too many.

Hi Tikay, notlookingto cause animosity its more of a general question for Aaron.  Because I noticed he has used that arguement before when talking about finishing positions etc in the EPL.  He has stated that because of a price change it can no longer be value.   

Generally prices change because information changes its how we decipher the information and use it to our advantage that determines if we are receiving value.  I know you know this, or that your own thought process has changed completely since the start of the thread. 

[Chompy]

Jack Payne to score any time for Posh v  Kiddy, 12/1 Coral. Way too big, should be around half that price.