Tips for Tikay

[The Camel]

Peter Wright has got a nightmare draw.

Keegan Brown and Dave Chisnall to beat within his first three matches.

[tikay]

I'll try & address some of the structural questions & comments tomorrow, been otherwise engaged today.

For now though, I gather that after being £800 down in November, we almost got out of it - great stuff, well done all those who made the effort to put good stuff up, & special thanks to those who helped us get on. 

Click to see full-size image.

[pleno1]

are England always too short odds no matter what or are their odds always realistic to their expectations?

if the latter i think the odds may underestimate the partnership of Stone/Smalling, both look very, very good at the moment. Do they potentially not take into account Jamie Vardy too? Also Barkley is really maturing into a great player. If Englands odds haven't changed much between now and 3 months ago perhaps theres value?

[arbboy]

Arb, is the BAGS heat in Swindon tonight just for that group? ie no movement on the Newcastle bet until the Doncaster heat on Wednesday?

Yes just for that group.  The Swindon heat was this morning btw not tonight and the results/final group table is below.  Monmore are through as group winners as expected and will be a tough nut to crack in the final.

http://www.bagsracing.com/midlands-south.html

I assume from the table that HG have a definite highest scoring runner up spot gtd (i am not 100% mathematically sure it is the case tbh).  The graphic says they are 'runners up' and the bottom 3 are 'out'.  Pretty sure HG are not 100% through yet as only 2 highest scoring losers go through to the final alongside the 4 group winners.  I can see 2 spots easily from the other groups where there could be 2 higher scoring runners up than HG.

The rest of the final round of heats play out this week and the 6 finalists will be known by Thursday.  Newcastle are as good as in the final barring something incredible happening.  My main angle originally in the betting with the draw bias against the East/Midlands group with it being very competitive (having 3 of the front 7 in the betting in the original ante post lists) and highly likely their runner up wouldn't have sufficient points to go through.  This is looking to be the case.

http://www.oddschecker.com/greyhounds/ante-post/bags-track-championship/winner

[arbboy]

Here are the seeded players for the World Championship darts and the possible 2nd round draws

the first round draw is today

so for example if it went to seedings mvg v rvb in the third round etc




our positions all find themselves in the MVG half

2016 PDC World Championship   chisnall   31   30            
PDC World Championship   RVB   40/1   20   £10 e/w 1/4 1,2,3,4
PDC World championship   G Price   250/1   5            
PDC World championship   wright   50-1   15   


did G Price not qualify?         

Price is there. Just missed out on a seeding which is probably no bad thing as he would have played MVG 2nd round if he had.

Personally I think MVG should be odds on. Utterly dominant at the minute. He has won the last 4 tournaments averaging 100+ in 22/23 matches. Taylor is very flaky under pressure nowadays, Anderson not in the form he was last year, Lewis flatters to deceive.

As soon as i looked at the draw i thought 'fuck me he has got a tough draw/that's a tough quarter and thought it about the whole draw apart from Ando's quarters.  Ando looks too big to me with that draw at 8/1 with bald.  At the prices and the draw i could only back Ando at 8/1.

[arbboy]

Cooper 99 yards at half time. Andre out. We've turned a 900 down month to a 60 down month in the last week

Does that mean some of the accounts are funded now ?

not as such because almost all of it is through third parties so it will be going into bank rather than betting accounts when its all settled up

as to arbboy's points, which i understand (leaving aside for a moment that many people are only comfortably recommending small bets)

£8k of profits. £4k forward book. £3k was on bwin which was withdrawn on account closure. About £1k is the current "betting book" on three sites, a few others having gone busto during the losing run earlier this month

if we started doing £100ew £200ew the real bankroll wouldn't last long (most likely) currently

i'd rather arbboy you posted the ideas up anyway, the thread and its admin is only a framework, the important thing is that ideas keep coming so people can get on with their own money if they wish

We all know I am not a maths guy(!), however.

I always thought the idea of variance and overcoming it, was to have as big a sample as possible. Surely dipping into these odds on ew "good things" on odd days adds a sort of double variance? You can't pick and choose what days you do it? Make sense?

If that does make sense, and its correct, whilst its not my kind of bet, you either do them all, or don't bother.

Sure it is a level as usual but here goes.  Sample size of 200 bets this will smooth variance because it's a big sample size.  We have 199 bets for £1 and 1 bet for £200.  We have a huge sample size but we are solely dependent on the outcome of one event out of the huge sample size to realise our expected value.  We need to stake correctly across ALL bets otherwise we increase variance and our reliance on not having 'a losing month' on the outcomes of a handful of events.  Having some people betting to 'correct' limits and others way under these limits ADDS variance even though lots of people seem to think it is 'safer' or 'more fun' to bet smaller.  Your bet size as a percentage of your roll should also be in relation to the relative edge you have in a bet.  If we are getting 6/5 about an even money shot it should be a 0.5/1% of roll bet as the edge is small.  If we have a spot where we are getting 4/1 about a flip it should probably be a 3/4% of roll bet size.  If we are getting 12/1 about a flip then it is probably a max bet and 10% of the roll. 

Like i said before if we are moving away from this kind of winning mentality long term because of a lot of the elders have left and it is just a casual fred now for a bit of fun for micro stakes that's cool. 

In poker terms you don't have a stable of 10 players with a combined £10k bankroll who all have a 5% edge in the games they play and put 9 of them in a 50p/£1 game and 1 in a £5/£10 game if you are risk averse (which fred is from the current level of comments/bet sizing etc and the constant worry about losing in the short term) because it increases your exposure massively to one person's performance.  This is the type of behaviour you would expect a risk loving gambler to have.  A risk averse porfolio would want all 10 of them playing £2/£4 to reduce the impact of the swings to the max.

I don't mind the swings in the slightest and i am happy to go with the current approach of 1 or 2 people betting to correct limits and the rest to micro limits.  However if we are then constantly worrying about having a losing month and 'getting out of it' etc in the short term then we should be minimising swings and all betting to the same levels.

[BigAdz]

Cooper 99 yards at half time. Andre out. We've turned a 900 down month to a 60 down month in the last week

Does that mean some of the accounts are funded now ?

not as such because almost all of it is through third parties so it will be going into bank rather than betting accounts when its all settled up

as to arbboy's points, which i understand (leaving aside for a moment that many people are only comfortably recommending small bets)

£8k of profits. £4k forward book. £3k was on bwin which was withdrawn on account closure. About £1k is the current "betting book" on three sites, a few others having gone busto during the losing run earlier this month

if we started doing £100ew £200ew the real bankroll wouldn't last long (most likely) currently

i'd rather arbboy you posted the ideas up anyway, the thread and its admin is only a framework, the important thing is that ideas keep coming so people can get on with their own money if they wish

We all know I am not a maths guy(!), however.

I always thought the idea of variance and overcoming it, was to have as big a sample as possible. Surely dipping into these odds on ew "good things" on odd days adds a sort of double variance? You can't pick and choose what days you do it? Make sense?

If that does make sense, and its correct, whilst its not my kind of bet, you either do them all, or don't bother.

Sure it is a level as usual but here goes.  Sample size of 200 bets this will smooth variance because it's a big sample size.  We have 199 bets for £1 and 1 bet for £200.  We have a huge sample size but we are solely dependent on the outcome of one event out of the huge sample size to realise our expected value.  We need to stake correctly across ALL bets otherwise we increase variance and our reliance on not having 'a losing month' on the outcomes of a handful of events.  Having some people betting to 'correct' limits and others way under these limits ADDS variance even though lots of people seem to think it is 'safer' or 'more fun' to bet smaller.

In poker terms you don't have a stable of 10 players with a combined £10k bankroll who all have a 5% edge in the games they play and put 9 of them in a 50p/£1 game and 1 in a £5/£10 game if you are risk averse (which fred is from the current level of comments/bet sizing etc and the constant worry about losing in the short term) because it increases your exposure massively to one person's performance.  This is the type of behaviour you would expect a risk loving gambler to have.  A risk averse porfolio would want all 10 of them playing £2/£4 to reduce the impact of the swings to the max.

I don't mind the swings in the slightest and i am happy to go with the current approach of 1 or 2 people betting to correct limits and the rest to micro limits.  However if we are then constantly worrying about having a losing month and 'getting out of it' etc in the short term then we should be minimising swings and all betting to the same levels.

Not sure why you think its a level?? I suspect you are just itching for another fight. Not playing I'm afraid.

My question was very little do to with the overall staking patterns, which is what you seemed to talk about.

Re-read properly and you may actually find I am sort of agreeing with some of your previous posts. We either do all the ew odds on shots to smooth out variance, or just not bother at all, but dipping in and out can just make you look wrong in what you are doing, yes?!

[arbboy]

Cooper 99 yards at half time. Andre out. We've turned a 900 down month to a 60 down month in the last week

Does that mean some of the accounts are funded now ?

not as such because almost all of it is through third parties so it will be going into bank rather than betting accounts when its all settled up

as to arbboy's points, which i understand (leaving aside for a moment that many people are only comfortably recommending small bets)

£8k of profits. £4k forward book. £3k was on bwin which was withdrawn on account closure. About £1k is the current "betting book" on three sites, a few others having gone busto during the losing run earlier this month

if we started doing £100ew £200ew the real bankroll wouldn't last long (most likely) currently

i'd rather arbboy you posted the ideas up anyway, the thread and its admin is only a framework, the important thing is that ideas keep coming so people can get on with their own money if they wish

We all know I am not a maths guy(!), however.

I always thought the idea of variance and overcoming it, was to have as big a sample as possible. Surely dipping into these odds on ew "good things" on odd days adds a sort of double variance? You can't pick and choose what days you do it? Make sense?

If that does make sense, and its correct, whilst its not my kind of bet, you either do them all, or don't bother.

Sure it is a level as usual but here goes.  Sample size of 200 bets this will smooth variance because it's a big sample size.  We have 199 bets for £1 and 1 bet for £200.  We have a huge sample size but we are solely dependent on the outcome of one event out of the huge sample size to realise our expected value.  We need to stake correctly across ALL bets otherwise we increase variance and our reliance on not having 'a losing month' on the outcomes of a handful of events.  Having some people betting to 'correct' limits and others way under these limits ADDS variance even though lots of people seem to think it is 'safer' or 'more fun' to bet smaller.

In poker terms you don't have a stable of 10 players with a combined £10k bankroll who all have a 5% edge in the games they play and put 9 of them in a 50p/£1 game and 1 in a £5/£10 game if you are risk averse (which fred is from the current level of comments/bet sizing etc and the constant worry about losing in the short term) because it increases your exposure massively to one person's performance.  This is the type of behaviour you would expect a risk loving gambler to have.  A risk averse porfolio would want all 10 of them playing £2/£4 to reduce the impact of the swings to the max.

I don't mind the swings in the slightest and i am happy to go with the current approach of 1 or 2 people betting to correct limits and the rest to micro limits.  However if we are then constantly worrying about having a losing month and 'getting out of it' etc in the short term then we should be minimising swings and all betting to the same levels.

Not sure why you think its a level?? I suspect you are just itching for another fight. Not playing I'm afraid.

My question was very little do to with the overall staking patterns, which is what you seemed to talk about.

Re-read properly and you may actually find I am sort of agreeing with some of your previous posts. We either do all the ew odds on shots to smooth out variance, or just not bother at all, but dipping in and out can just make you look wrong in what you are doing, yes?!

All i have ever spoke about is the overall staking patterns.  I haven't discussed anything else. My two numerical examples were all about staking patterns.  I said because the overall staking patterns across all posters are not uniform then this massively increases variance to fred and as such i have posted much less selections recently (whether they are odds on ew bets or other selections is totally irrelevant - all my selections have positive EV otherwise i wouldn't post them therefore the type of bets which are placed make no difference in the slightest to this discussion) because i don't want to go against proper betting principles, which fred is based upon, and start staking incorrectly.  As the vast majority of other posters do not stake 'correctly' in terms of the roll, imo of course, by me doing so adds variance hugely to the short term results.   It is clear how much panic is induced into fred when we have a short term downswing so i don't really want to add to that by staking correctly as it will increase this potential panic.

This is not, and has never, been a discussion about selective odds on favs ew being value.  They are value.  That is not up for discussion.  If they are not then we should be max laying them win and place in the betfair market because our edge will be huge.  If people think we will lose 5% long term by backing these selections then we will be making 10% by laying them win and place on the machine to the same stakes.  I think everyone here knows which side of the coin the value is on simply by who allows you to bet/lay and who closes you down when you back these type of selections.  If anyone disagrees and thinks they have an edge please PM me as i struggle to get on these selections and will happily accommodate you with action up to whatever levels you want to lay.

Whether we do all ten every month which have a 5% edge or 2 with a 5% edge is totally irrelevant to our overall betting profile.  If we keep backing bets with the correct staking pattern relative to their edge then we will keep making money long term whilst MINIMISING variance.  We don't need to smooth variance on a particular type of bet (ie backing selective odds on horses ew).  If they have an edge they go into the big melting pot of fred and make us money.  If we miss a few it just means we miss out on 5% of whatever we were going to bet on that horse long term.  Whether it wins or loses on that day is total irrelevant unless you are short term results orientated which a lot of us seem to be becoming recently which is a worry.  If we have a 5% edge and have £200 ew on a 4/5 shot every time we place the bet we win £20 whether it wins, places or falls.  We really need to get back to this way of thinking imo.

If we choose to only bet 2 of the ten over a month it means we only make £40 that month rather than £200.   It is obviously better to back all 10 than 2 because we make more money long term.  That is the key reason why we want to bet every one.  Not to smooth variance.  When you bet correctly to your roll and edge in the bet variance takes care of itself.

[arbboy]

If you add the fact the betfair prices for the place part of the bet are held artficially high because arbers are happy to supply the 'wrong' price to lay because the firms give them free money and they are happy to pay a premium as arbers to gain zero risk.  If firms suddenly stopped betting ew on these races under traditional terms the betfair place market would have a lot less 'supply' of layers at the wrong prices as the arbers would disappear which would result in the place price being even lower than it already is and highlighting even more how much value there are in these bets.

[Doobs]

I am not sure I agree with your variance argument Arbboy.  I think you should just look at your own bets and ignore the rest.  If you put up 10 a month you are producing a less volatile result than putting up 2 a month.  If you get to the end of the year and have put up 120 bets you have a better result than putting up 24.  What everybody else is doing isn't going to change that.

A lot of the time we are restricted just because of the accounts situation.  If I can get 50 e/w on with beteveryday then I am never giving thread more than a tenner e/w of that.  As it is I am giving away my own EV.  Even when someone else puts something up then giving thread all I can get on is pretty generous.  I do sometimes do this, but it is probably the exception.  And some bets you can't even get a tenner on (on some of the obscure motor sports markets you can't win more than £100 even with a clean account).  So a lot of bets are never going to be very large. 

People are always going to have a view on what they are happy with tikay losing.  I am going to always be more comfortable with losing £500 of my own money than £500 of Tikay's. 

So overall I don't think your argument really holds water on your own bets and I don't think you should be telling others they should recommend more than they are happy with.  Sure in an ideal world people should put more on, but I don't think we should be forcing anyone and we definitely don't want to be doing anything else that will put people off posting. 

[Peter-27]

So this is promising:

http://www.oddschecker.com/motorsport/formula-one/constructors-championship

People ranking McLaren as 4th favourites for the title is stupid. Despite what the media, and teams are saying, due to restricted engine development, McLaren will be just as bad next season, if not completely last given that Manor have a Mercedes engine in 2016. This all means that there will be lots of value available on McLaren next season

I don't think this follows.  McLaren are going to be hardest to predict next season.  McLaren can be both be both more likely to finish first than Williams and more likely to finish last than Williams.  You can say Mercedes are 95% certain to finish in front of Force India, and that Williams are likely to be in the same ballpark as Force India, but you can't be at all certain where McLaren end up.  

I don't blame the bookies at all.  You don't want to go 100/1 McLaren and leave yourself open to a bunch of honda insiders knowing much better than you how the engine development is going.  Tighty put up something on the racing thread the other day.  4 horses in the same yard were gambled in to very short prices (hills went evens all 4).."  They ended up last, last, 2nd last and pulled up.  Next time they run, you'd be a pretty thick bookie to read that form at face value and putting them all up at 50/1.  And I say that knowing the most likely result is all 4 will run badly.  90 times in 100 they will run horrid, 10 times you get hammered.  Good luck pricing that.  

I think you're missing my point, perhaps I wasn't hugely clear before. I'm saying I'm near certain McLaren will be at the back next season; or in other words, easy to predict.

While Honda will develop their engine, development is restricted, and other engines will develop too. I expect them to be slightly closer to the teams ahead - but still largely at the back.

So this is promising:

http://www.oddschecker.com/motorsport/formula-one/constructors-championship

People ranking McLaren as 4th favourites for the title is stupid. Despite what the media, and teams are saying, due to restricted engine development, McLaren will be just as bad next season, if not completely last given that Manor have a Mercedes engine in 2016. This all means that there will be lots of value available on McLaren next season

I don't think this follows.  McLaren are going to be hardest to predict next season.  McLaren can be both be both more likely to finish first than Williams and more likely to finish last than Williams.  You can say Mercedes are 95% certain to finish in front of Force India, and that Williams are likely to be in the same ballpark as Force India, but you can't be at all certain where McLaren end up.  

I don't blame the bookies at all.  You don't want to go 100/1 McLaren and leave yourself open to a bunch of honda insiders knowing much better than you how the engine development is going.  Tighty put up something on the racing thread the other day.  4 horses in the same yard were gambled in to very short prices (hills went evens all 4).."  They ended up last, last, 2nd last and pulled up.  Next time they run, you'd be a pretty thick bookie to read that form at face value and putting them all up at 50/1.  And I say that knowing the most likely result is all 4 will run badly.  90 times in 100 they will run horrid, 10 times you get hammered.  Good luck pricing that.  

A good judge that I know who works in F1 agrees with Peter on this. I believe they have lost, or are losing, a number of their sponsors. Tag ditching them was a bit of a shock. It means Honda have to spend more just to stand still. I'm looking to be short McLaren again.

The reality is that McLaren are really on the brink with finances at the moment in their F1 programme. It's not inconceivable that they pull out before the 2016 season begins, although very unlikely of course.

Peter,

Thank you very much for the Force India and McLaren spread bets. I'd like to nominate them for Bet Of the Year.

They were certainly my ' best ' bets this year.

Thank you very much  

Although, I don't think the McLaren bet ended up going against my name .. but either way, I'm delighted with the way Motorsport has shot up the TFT rankings for profit! I'm determined to get it to the top  

So this is promising:

http://www.oddschecker.com/motorsport/formula-one/constructors-championship

People ranking McLaren as 4th favourites for the title is stupid. Despite what the media, and teams are saying, due to restricted engine development, McLaren will be just as bad next season, if not completely last given that Manor have a Mercedes engine in 2016. This all means that there will be lots of value available on McLaren next season

Pricing aside, surely if Honda think they have no chance of bettering this season they'll leave the sport citing engine development restrictions rather than trashing their brand by pootling around and the back before going phut for another year?

This is a possible scenario - but it would cost them a lot to do this. They're locked into a partnership with McLaren until the end of 2018.

[McGlashan]

and murray's going favourite right?

http://www.oddschecker.com/awards/sports-personality-of-the-year/winner

recency bias

live on bbc just before the vote

middle class voters, bbc sport....

Spot on Tighty. Andy has gone favourite.

[The Camel]

and murray's going favourite right?

http://www.oddschecker.com/awards/sports-personality-of-the-year/winner

recency bias

live on bbc just before the vote

middle class voters, bbc sport....

Spot on Tighty. Andy has gone favourite.

Don't get it myself.

He's not beaten anyone inside the Top 10 to get GB to win the Davis Cup has he?

Several of the wins have been virtual walkovers.

It seems like the top players are only interested in winning it once. Federer, Djoko, Stan all haven't bothered appearing this year.

Compared to winning a US Open, Wimbledon and the Olympic gold, winning a Davis Cup seems like a very tiny achievement.

[McGlashan]

and murray's going favourite right?

http://www.oddschecker.com/awards/sports-personality-of-the-year/winner

recency bias

live on bbc just before the vote

middle class voters, bbc sport....

Spot on Tighty. Andy has gone favourite.

Don't get it myself.

He's not beaten anyone inside the Top 10 to get GB to win the Davis Cup has he?

Several of the wins have been virtual walkovers.

It seems like the top players are only interested in winning it once. Federer, Djoko, Stan all haven't bothered appearing this year.

Compared to winning a US Open, Wimbledon and the Olympic gold, winning a Davis Cup seems like a very tiny achievement.

It fits Tighty's criteria. That's pretty much all I get about Murray's achievements.

Lewis Hamilton took his foot off the gas. Fury got butchered in The Sun. There's few other candidates right now.

[MereNovice]

November 2015 Figures

Closed bets: 78
Amount wagered: £2,159.23
Profit/loss: -£60.90
ROI: -2.82%

Number of "sports" bet on: 10
Most popular: MotorSport (33), NFL (13), Football (10).
Most profitable: Horses (£198.75), MotorSport (£146.21), Football (£91.20)
Least profitable: Dogs (-£305.00), NFL (-£118.06), Boxing (-£90.00)

Number of tipsters: 23 including 1 new tipster.


Overall statistics (since February 2012)

Total closed bets: 5,201
Amount wagered: £154,217.12
Profit/loss: £8,678.84
ROI: 5.63%

Number of "sports" bet on: 30
Most popular:  Horses (1,229), Football (1,222), Golf (410), Cricket (310).

Most and least profitable sports (based on aggregate profit/loss) are:
        
Sport               Profit  Amt Bet       ROI   No.
Football   4,521.38   37,336.83   12.11   1,222
Horses   2,074.19   39,026.34   5.31   1,229
Misc.   1,849.92   7,109.77   26.02   188
...
Boxing   -441.76   2,892.67   -15.27   81
Snooker   -450.00   1,275.00   -35.29   38
RU   -485.45   4,495.79   -10.80   236


The complete list is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aia1Hxq-NDNWdFk3UmlTSXMzTjRBTVNfOWRndVFsZHc#gid=4


Total number of tipsters: 180


Number of different bookies/exchanges/agents: 58

Most and least profitable bookies (based on aggregate profit/loss) are:
        
Bookie          Profit     Amt Bet   ROI     No.
Bwin      3,112.33   4,877.86   63.81   129
BoyleSports      2,505.40   4,520.45   55.42   116
Ladbrokes      2,326.65   18,631.60   12.49   691
...
PaddyPower      -557.82   7,755.31   -7.19   365
BetDaq      -977.60   1,192.50   -81.98   6
BetFred      -1,505.47   12,131.87   -12.41   422


The complete list is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aia1Hxq-NDNWdFk3UmlTSXMzTjRBTVNfOWRndVFsZHc#gid=7

MotorSport is now 6th on the list of most profitable sports. It will take a bit of work to catch the top five.